A columnist for the U.K.’s The Telegraph has called Daniel Radcliffe “the world’s most ungrateful man” and accused him of trying to “cancel” J.K. Rowling.
Radcliffe recently reaffirmed his support for transgender people, telling Indiewire why he felt compelled to write a 2020 open letter responding to Rowling’s anti-trans tweets.
“The reason I felt very, very much as though I needed to say something when I did was because, particularly since finishing Potter, I’ve met so many queer and trans kids and young people who had a huge amount of identification with Potter on that,” Radcliffe said earlier this week. “And so seeing them hurt on that day I was like, I wanted them to know that not everybody in the franchise felt that way. And that was really important.”
“I’ve worked with the Trevor Project for more than 10 years, and so I don’t think I would’ve been able to look myself in the mirror had I not said anything,” the star of the Harry Potter film franchise continued. “But it’s not mine to guess what’s going on in someone else’s head.”
Never Miss a Beat
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay ahead of the latest LGBTQ+ political news and insights.
Nevertheless, in her hyperbolic Telegraph piece, columnist Judith Woods described Radcliffe as “a 33-year-old man child” who “has once again sought to cancel his creator.” She also insisted that the actor would not have had a successful career had it not been for Rowling.
Fans on Twitter were quick to point out the absurdity of Woods’s piece, particularly her assertion that Rowling had “created” Radcliffe.
“‘His creator’ strongly implies that this journalist does not understand the difference between Daniel Radcliffe, a real human person, and Harry Potter, a fictional character he depicted in a film series that concluded more than a decade ago,” tweeted historian Dr. Charlotte Lydia Riley.
Another user pointed out that Radcliffe was already a successful child actor when he was cast in the first Harry Potter film. “That role was cast by a casting director (Janet Hirshenson) and director Chris Columbus, not JK Rowling. He doesn’t owe her shit.”
“his creator” strongly implies that this journalist does not understand the difference between Daniel Radcliffe, a real human person, and Harry Potter, a fictional character he depicted in a film series that concluded more than a decade ago pic.twitter.com/y8Ik9U6nvk
— Dr Charlotte Lydia Riley (@lottelydia) November 3, 2022
Daniel Radcliffe was already a successful child actor, the son of a casting director, when he landed the role of Harry Potter. That role was cast by a casting director (Janet Hirshenson) and director Chris Columbus, not JK Rowling. He doesn’t owe her shit.
— Louisa 🌈👭 (@LouisatheLast) November 3, 2022
The casting director made him famous.
The director made him famous.
His agent who signed him to a multiple movie deal made him famous.
— Mx. Amanda Jetté Knox (@MavenOfMayhem) November 3, 2022
J.K. Rowling wrote a book series that was optioned into films. Those films became their own franchise and actors were hired to play the roles. Daniel Radcliffe was one of those actors, and he is not being ungrateful to anyone for speaking out in support of trans people.
— Mx. Amanda Jetté Knox (@MavenOfMayhem) November 3, 2022
J.K. Rowling is not, in fact, Daniel Radcliffe's "creator." Y'all know he isn't ACTUALLY Harry Potter, right?
Oh, and he did a job for 10 years while he was still a child and teenager. He doesn't owe her a damn thing. pic.twitter.com/eT2eAXnFqi
— Ashton Pittman (@ashtonpittman) November 3, 2022
Considering how much they go on about “biological reality” it’s rather weird that they are willing to discount the biological entity Daniel Radcliffe in favour of a fictional male character as imagined by a female author 🤷♀️
— H. Gabler 🐀 (@decrecyodette) November 3, 2022
Musician and activist Billy Bragg, who was recently the target of Rowling’s ire after he applauded comedian Graham Norton’s suggestion that journalists talk directly to trans people rather than celebrities like Rowling, also weighed in.
More evidence that the right wing media – this is @dailytelegraph – are now using ‘cancel’ as a synonym for ‘disagree with’. Is the right to disagree no longer a fundamental aspect of free speech? Also JK Rowling didn’t create Daniel Radcliffe. She’s not his mum. pic.twitter.com/1eHVhYjmwY
— Billy Bragg (@billybragg) November 3, 2022
“Even if jk rowling had saved daniel radcliffe from a pack of hungry lions as a child, he would not in fact be obligated to support her weird bigotry today,” another user tweeted.
even if jk rowling had saved daniel radcliffe from a pack of hungry lions as a child, he would not in fact be obligated to support her weird bigotry today
just clearing that up for the tl
— Dr. Samantha Hancox-Li (@perdricof) November 3, 2022
Others jokingly compared Woods calling Rowling the actor’s “creator” to Frankenstein’s monster and a golem, a figure out of Jewish folklore.
Daniel Radcliffe is the name of the creator, he's actual called Daniel Radcliffe's Monster
— Eleanor Morton November Edition (@EleanorMorton) November 3, 2022
How could Daniel Radcliffe, whom JK Rowling formed herself out of clay, and breathed life into, and said “Go now unto the World my child, I bestow upon thee the gift of mortality”, and sent into the kingdoms of Elam and Edom to smote her enemies, disagree with her in print?!
— Mikaela | aleakiM (@FridayInHalifax) November 4, 2022
Daniel Radcliffe was not "created" by J.K. Rowling, asshat. Also just to be clear for everyone seemingly confused in this conversation: Trans women are women. pic.twitter.com/trsAHynJXE
— it was rachatha all along (@RachelLeishman) November 3, 2022
This idea that Daniel Radcliffe has to agree with Rowling’s transphobia because he “owes” her his success is not only fucking stupid but worryingly coercive.
— Commander Stephanie Sterling (@JimSterling) November 3, 2022
