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.
6 comments:
OMG this is the most rediculus thing ive read today this guy doesnt no anything about HP or dubledore. ill listen to JK thank u.
Isn't it H-E-R-M-I-O-N-E?
hermionefan84 was taken!!!!!! leave me alone
Blogs do not exist.
i am by no means a harry potter expert nor am i in any way a harry potter fan (although i did enjoy the films). with that said, i feel that the coming out of a major character in a widely popular book series should always be welcomed. the homosexual population continues to struggle with acceptance despite the growing number of homosexuals in society and their places within it's heirarchy. the presence of homosexuals in mainstream media has been on a slow and steady rise over the last ten years. at the same time, the image/idea of a homosexual has been socially constructed, destroyed and reconstructed so many times that it's become increasingly difficult to truly define what it is to be a homosexual. you have everything from flaming fruits parading around with a queer eye to conservative republican senators who aren't gay but enjoy homosexual activities in public places and, of course, everything in between.
under any other circumstances i would feel that jk's revelation deserves the praise for which she is receiveing. however, i think that it's extremely convenient that after 6 books, all of a sudden the wizard is gay. it begs the question "why now?" i can understand that she may have wanted to keep him in the closet until she could find a publisher. but after the massive success that she enjoyed with the first 2 books, why not bring him out in the third or the fourth or the fifth or even the sixth? she had ample opportunities to make a political statement throughtout the harry potter series and she chose to make it now...after the fact. her anouncement will undoubtedly have a profound impact on harry potter fans of every degree of fanatacism. but the impact that this information would of had on the public had it been divulged in the third or fourth book probably would have been much greater. will fans have purchased the subsequent novels having known that the head wizard was gay in the second book? would publishers continue pushing jk's books having known that one of her main characters was a homosexual?
i know i'm just ranting. but bottomline is, jk's revelation seems so contrived that it diminishes any and all good that it could have done had she mentioned had she brought this to our attention from the beginning. at least to me.
YES!!!!!!! BANNER F-ING DAY! MY BLOG HAS GENERATED ACTUAL INTELLIGENT THOUGHT FROOM STRANGERS!
Post a Comment