If HP does something right is have disabled characters that: - Actually suffer with their disabilities sometimes, not just pretend everything is always good. - Have characterization altered by their disability without becoming 'the point of their character' (token disabled person) - Have issues beyond their disabilities - their life isn't run by their condition, they are people beyond it. - NEVER have a SINGLE disability cured by magic!!! They use magic to fix broken glasses, NOT fix their eyes - Never have "better than the real thing! No downsides!" magical accessibility aids - they show their scars and have to make trade-offs. - Never have 'fixes the problem!' medication for chronic conditions - Have a wide range of disabilities - physical, invisible, mental... sometimes mixed together, in complex, dynamic ways
People don't realize how good it actually is at this?! That's not getting into things like - depicting micro-aggressions, - characters who aren't disabled but need constant accommodations for their species - the diverse ways different character have mental health issues from different things - General prejudice, bigotry and ableism in society having just as large an effect on life as the condition itself - or larger.
Without trying. HP never set out to 'have good disabled characters' - it set out to show the many ways people can struggle. But it is somehow amazing. Better than we get from 99% of things, even the things that TRY really hard.
Hogwarts Legacy, a more modern attempt within the same franchise, PALES in comparison to the books. Like... it's fine. I like it well enough, but it does the whole: "Character's personality and 'point' is ruled by his injury" and "Magical accessibility aid that's basically as good as eyesight" All it's missing is "Upbeat sporty wheelchair character" and "Deaf character that can do sign language but mainly uses telepathy" and it'd be a full bingo card...