What a terrific article. I, like so many others, found Harry Potter an endearing and enduring character because he is bullied, neglected, underestimated, and maligned but manages to overcome those challenges. I believed, naively now, that the author supported all of society’s underdogs and castaways. To be fair, we all have our moral blind spots. But the author’s “blind spot” appears more intentional than ethically clueless.
But your points about the futility of protest campaigns against such notorious bigots as Hobby Lobby, Chik-Fil-A and the author are painfully realistic and eminently pragmatic. However, I still have my own personal boycott against these places. When it comes to Potter, I assume that when she wrote the first books on the brink of poverty, she saw in herself and Harry, people who had been cast out by society. Now a billionaire, she may have forgotten from whence she came. The author is now encased in her Rapunzel tower, blissfully separated from the daily battles we all fight in life. To follow up on your analogy, the author now tosses spears that maim from the safety of the tower, knowing that her fortress is impregnable.