Nothing makes me more angry than ex-post-facto politicization.
Obviously I'm talking about Harry Potter.
For those of you not Josh nor Shana (who both told me), you may or may not know J.K. Rowling, the rags-to-riches scribe of the Harry Potter books, announced one of the main characters in the books was gay -- the Head Wizard, and Harry Potter's role-model and father figure-- Albus Dumbledore.
Listen, I don't mind that he's gay. In fact, I like it -- rope the kiddies in with action, adventure, and (heteronormative) romance and then sucker-punch them with genuine social issues: that's always been my philosophy. But I think this is just sort of an egregious press-related maneuver--I mean, if Dumbledore was gay, as Rowling claims, PUT SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN THE BOOKS. Because there's nothing. I mean, when you are long dead and gone, J.K., all that will remain are the books. And your great political statement about heralding a gay hero was no more than yesterday's Drudge Report.
I know the obvious retort: it just isn't a big deal, so she didn't feel the read to mention it. Well that's just asinine and does not reflect the society in which we live. It's great for kids to have positive role models that are minorities -- whatever minority they may be -- but I think it's just sort of sneaky, media-whoreish, and narratively negligent to mention this key character detail just after the fact,casually at a press conference.
Because, let's face it kids, DUMBLEDORE does not exist. Dumbledore is a character in a book series. Anything that dumbledore is is in the books. He doesn't exist paratextually, although apparently his sexuality does.
I don't know; maybe I'm overreacting.
Obviously I'm talking about Harry Potter.
For those of you not Josh nor Shana (who both told me), you may or may not know J.K. Rowling, the rags-to-riches scribe of the Harry Potter books, announced one of the main characters in the books was gay -- the Head Wizard, and Harry Potter's role-model and father figure-- Albus Dumbledore.
Listen, I don't mind that he's gay. In fact, I like it -- rope the kiddies in with action, adventure, and (heteronormative) romance and then sucker-punch them with genuine social issues: that's always been my philosophy. But I think this is just sort of an egregious press-related maneuver--I mean, if Dumbledore was gay, as Rowling claims, PUT SOMETHING ABOUT IT IN THE BOOKS. Because there's nothing. I mean, when you are long dead and gone, J.K., all that will remain are the books. And your great political statement about heralding a gay hero was no more than yesterday's Drudge Report.
I know the obvious retort: it just isn't a big deal, so she didn't feel the read to mention it. Well that's just asinine and does not reflect the society in which we live. It's great for kids to have positive role models that are minorities -- whatever minority they may be -- but I think it's just sort of sneaky, media-whoreish, and narratively negligent to mention this key character detail just after the fact,casually at a press conference.
Because, let's face it kids, DUMBLEDORE does not exist. Dumbledore is a character in a book series. Anything that dumbledore is is in the books. He doesn't exist paratextually, although apparently his sexuality does.
I don't know; maybe I'm overreacting.
