I am about halfway through the 5th book, and somehow have kept almost all knowledge of future events away from my ears. I implore you, don't fuck this up for me with your comments, I tell you this in full confidence. This weekend though, news broke concerning a certain cock hungry wizard of Catholic Priestian proportions. Dumbledore, Wizard extraordinaire, leader of Hogwarts School for Wizardry and Animal Husbandry is in fact a homosexual.
Drink this, it's candy
Now whatever one wizard does with another wizard in the privacy of his or her floating house on a cloud in Romania with his wand (Christ this is easy) and anal beads, is his own business. But when that same wizard comes around sullying the good name of those every flavor beans (His favorite flavor was taint, how did I not see this coming?) and teaching (the most noble of professions, excluding the oldest profession, of course), all the while protecting the world from pure evil, that just goes too far. If I didn't already know he was dead, I would call for his removal from the post. I have already begun a movement to get James Buchanan removed from the records as our 15th president.
Why is this relevant? J.K. Rowling thought it was so damn important to send a note to the director of the next film telling him to change the script because in her mind Dumbledore was gay, and she had concocted an elaborate back story explaining it. Long ago these stories passed from mere children's fantasy literature, to a monolith of popular culture. What is stopping Rowling from writing a book for adults, dealing with the more adult aspects of the wizarding world. There has got to be more to the story than this one school and this one whining kid. It is perfectly reasonable for adults to want to know more about the back story.
What is not reasonable is to finish the series, and then come back around every few months or so and tell people little tidbits that never made it to the final printing. Just like a DVD has deleted scenes that sometimes reveal exactly where the story could and/or should have gone, Rowling can just write a new addendum to the Harry Potter series filling in the cracks. Until then, please don't go around the world with your speaking engagements and just start babbling about how Dumbledore is gay, and Hagrid had a foot fetish. It clarifies nothing and makes the reader question the motives of all the characters. Does each character have such an extensive lifestyle and history that it was necessary to omit references to it lest you offend parents?
Well, surprisingly, I agree, which is why writing a back story would let parents decide what to tell their children and when it is appropriate to do so. Ms. Rowling has already done all she can to alleviate parents of the duty to explain death; there is plenty of that going on already in her stories. If you want to be a social activist then create a way to tell your story and allow parents to use that story to teach their children. Plus you are not rich enough. The money earned by such a book would allow you to get that tea cozy you have had your eye on for lo these many years.
Posts
I couldn't agree with you more. When I first heard that JKR had ousted Dumbledore from his magically enlargened closet, I felt like throwing the computer in disgust. I was already tired of JKR spouting off ridiculous information about the glory-filled futures and shame-filled inner lives of the main characters. I wouldn't mind this information if it was presented to me via ACTUAL TEXT. But when she divulges juicy gossip off-the-cuff at random readings, I get the impression that she's making it up as she goes along in an effort to entertain herself. Now, I know the Dumbledore thing is different - she had an established opinion that the guy was gay. But this revelatation actually annoys me on a completely separate level because it sexualizes a series of books that has revolutionized reading for a whole generation of kids. And that annoys the crap out of me. If Dumbledore had molested harry during the Quidditch World Cup and we were all desperately asking, "Why? Oh, God, why did this happen?" I might be a little grateful for the information. As it is, the fact that dumbledore is "rolling like thunder under the covers" with some magic-wielding Elton John is completely useless to me. Like you said, it clarifies nothing and only dirties up a series that stood alone as a fun, if dark, series for kids (and adults) to enjoy.
ReplyDeleteI also must point out, as an English major, that authorial intention is something that we, as readers, have learned to disregard completely in the analysis of a text. Because most authors don't have the opportunity to rattle off the contents of their private notebooks on stage at Carnegie Hall, readers CANNOT rely on such ramblings to interpret a text. The following quote is from an a book by new critics Wimsatt and Beardsley. They are trying to figure out whether or not TS Eliot was trying to allude to some other text in his poem "Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"....
"[...]the way of biographical or genetic inquiry, in which, taking advantage of the fact that Eliot is still alive, and in the spirit of a man who would settle a bet, the critic writes to Eliot and asks what he meant, or if he had Donne in mind. We shall not here weigh the probabilities‑whether Eliot would answer that he meant nothing at all, had nothing at all in mind ‑a sufficiently good answer to such a question‑or in an unguarded moment might furnish a clear and, within its limit, irrefutable answer. Our point is that such an answer to such an inquiry would have nothing to do with the poem "Prufrock"; it would not be a critical inquiry. Critical inquiries, unlike bets, are not settled in this way. Critical inquiries are not settled by consulting the oracle."
I only ask that in the future, if you leave a direct quote, make sure it is completely unreadable and dense. I managed to understand that one.
ReplyDeleteI just wanted to give a big BAGOO to Tison and Russel, I must say, I'm impressed with the writing. Your #1 fan in Baton Rouge, PMS.
ReplyDelete