It's been quite a long time since I've posted anything, but that doesn't mean that I've lost interest in Harry Potter. That can't be farther from the truth. The truth is that it's been a hectic end of the year for me, for our family. November was the moving month for both our daughters, and I helped with the packing and some unpacking for both. That was November, which meant that when I was wrapping all that china and other breakables in newspapers that I hadn't time to read, I also wasn't on my lap top more than checking my email.
The little time that I did have (before I finally had to do my least favorite task and go shopping for Christmas gifts), I spent reading. Somewhere in the fall I managed to finish books that weren't Harry Potter, while I also reread the first two Potter books. I was going to post some things as I read, but that just didn't happen. I'm now about half-way through Prisoner of Azkaban. It's rather nice to read the books at a more leisurely pace, all the while making notes in the margins or at the end of the books.
The question has been put out on several sites about how our lives were affected by reading Harry Potter. I haven't responded to any of them, but it is something I've been thinking about.
And I'm still thinking about it. I think for now I'll just say that it has changed my life in ways I'd never have guessed--for the better, I think. Maybe tomorrow after all the Christmas ornaments are back in their boxes and the lights are off the tree I'll allow myself to go down that long memory lane of Harry Potter.
But not tonight--I do need to get some sleep.
Pat
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Dumbledore is what?
I thought I didn't have anything further to clarify about how I view Deathly Hallows, but that was before the two big revelations from Rowling in her Open Book tour in the middle of October. Like many others, I had entered to try to win two tickets to Carnegie Hall. And I knew which of my daughters would be going with me. It would have been Sarah, as October 19 was her birthday. Laura wasn't happy about that announcement, but thankfully, I was spared that bit of sibling rivalry when I did not win the tickets. Not to mention that I saved a lot of money in air fare from Seattle to New York and in hotel costs which looked outrageous when I chanced to look just in case I won.
On October 17, Rowling talked about the Christian themes and imagery and said that she had always intended that they were part of the story, particularly the 7th book. It was quite a vindication for all of us who have been saying that we saw those things early on. So many things fall into place with that knowledge. She was confirming rather than revealing something that was not already in the books. It was there all along and the only reason some didn't see it was that they refused to do so, preferring some other purpose for the characters choices and for the outcome of the story. There are some excellent discussions about this at Hogwarts Professor (John Granger) and at Sword of Gryffindor (Travis Prinzi) so Unless I suddenly have a lot of time on my hands, I won't repost everything here. Well, never say never--I may do it later, but not for a while anyway.
Then we had the question and answer period at Carnegie Hall and of course, the reporters jumped on the only question/answer that was sure to make headlines--in some cities it was on the front page no less. Surely there must be more important things going on in the world than Rowling saying she always thought of Dumbledore (a fictional character in a fantasy series) as gay.
I found myself going from being elated about the religious confirmation to be sorely disappointed about the gay revelation. It only took me about a day to realize that my disappointment wasn't so much that Dumbledore was gay but that there was no clue of it in any of the seven books. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay but by not making that clear (especially to people who have read the books over and over and by that time, I'd even read Deathly Hallows three times), it just didn't matter.
I know that some people have said that they thought certain characters were gay--Lupin being the prime example. And that turned out not to be the case when we learned that he and Tonks were in love and then married and had a child. We see Lupin at his happiest when he comes to announce that he and Tonks have a son, Teddy.
I think many of us thought of Dumbledore as just being too consumed with saving the world to even think about any sex life he had, even one in his youth. He sort of fit that image that I, and many students had, that their teachers have no life outside of school. When I taught school, my 2nd grade students were fascinated that I was getting married, and then they met my husband later. The fascination was, I think, because until then they really thought that I lived at the school. Children just have no reason to think of teachers as having a sex life--and I apparently read the books with that mind-set.
It had no bearing on my reading of Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald. That is the way Rowling chose to speak of their relationship--a friendship of two highly talented youth who were busy with their political amibitions to save the wizarding world. There didn't have to be more of an explanation of why Dumbledore was so enthralled with his new friend. He'd finally found someone who was his equal and it was a way for him to escape the responsiblities of his family that must have felt like a huge unfair burden to someone so bright and gifted.
My other disappointment was that Rowling shared this bit of back story at all. As a Christian, I've spent the last eight years defending the books and pointing out to parents that they are stories written with Christian themes--they have nothing to fear from letting their children read the Harry Potter books. But many of those Christians who are Harry-haters are also very intolerant of gays. And one of my first thoughts was that by telling us that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling had undone everything that would reassure those fearful doubting parents who might rethink their decision and let their children experience a wonderful story. *sigh*
Well, it is what it is. Rowling thinks of Dumbledore as gay, so as the author, she must be right. However, I think that she missed her chance to have all the readers see him the same way by not putting that particular detail in the books themselves. If it was important to understanding the story, then it should have been there in the first place. (Personally, I'm glad it wasn't as I don't think it would have been appropriate in a book read by so many young children.)
I came to see after a few days and reading a lot of other people's thoughts, that my biggest disappointment was not that Dumbledore was gay, but that Rowling hadn't included it in the story and saying it after the books were done just seemed pointless and rendered the information useless to the understanding of the story. I've also realized that for all the times I said I wanted all that back story, all the details about all the characters, I don't. If it's not there already, it does not change the way I read it; if it's not there already, it just doesn't matter.
John Granger included links to articles written by Prof. John Mark Reynolds:
Dumbledore Is Not Gay: Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author
Dumbledore Is Not Hetero: Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author II
Author's Intent: Taking the Story More Seriously Than the Author Part III
They are well worth reading. I feel that I can now move past this particular bit of information that will not change how I read the Harry Potter stories--and I'm glad that I have come to that place.
Pat
On October 17, Rowling talked about the Christian themes and imagery and said that she had always intended that they were part of the story, particularly the 7th book. It was quite a vindication for all of us who have been saying that we saw those things early on. So many things fall into place with that knowledge. She was confirming rather than revealing something that was not already in the books. It was there all along and the only reason some didn't see it was that they refused to do so, preferring some other purpose for the characters choices and for the outcome of the story. There are some excellent discussions about this at Hogwarts Professor (John Granger) and at Sword of Gryffindor (Travis Prinzi) so Unless I suddenly have a lot of time on my hands, I won't repost everything here. Well, never say never--I may do it later, but not for a while anyway.
Then we had the question and answer period at Carnegie Hall and of course, the reporters jumped on the only question/answer that was sure to make headlines--in some cities it was on the front page no less. Surely there must be more important things going on in the world than Rowling saying she always thought of Dumbledore (a fictional character in a fantasy series) as gay.
I found myself going from being elated about the religious confirmation to be sorely disappointed about the gay revelation. It only took me about a day to realize that my disappointment wasn't so much that Dumbledore was gay but that there was no clue of it in any of the seven books. Rowling may think of Dumbledore as gay but by not making that clear (especially to people who have read the books over and over and by that time, I'd even read Deathly Hallows three times), it just didn't matter.
I know that some people have said that they thought certain characters were gay--Lupin being the prime example. And that turned out not to be the case when we learned that he and Tonks were in love and then married and had a child. We see Lupin at his happiest when he comes to announce that he and Tonks have a son, Teddy.
I think many of us thought of Dumbledore as just being too consumed with saving the world to even think about any sex life he had, even one in his youth. He sort of fit that image that I, and many students had, that their teachers have no life outside of school. When I taught school, my 2nd grade students were fascinated that I was getting married, and then they met my husband later. The fascination was, I think, because until then they really thought that I lived at the school. Children just have no reason to think of teachers as having a sex life--and I apparently read the books with that mind-set.
It had no bearing on my reading of Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald. That is the way Rowling chose to speak of their relationship--a friendship of two highly talented youth who were busy with their political amibitions to save the wizarding world. There didn't have to be more of an explanation of why Dumbledore was so enthralled with his new friend. He'd finally found someone who was his equal and it was a way for him to escape the responsiblities of his family that must have felt like a huge unfair burden to someone so bright and gifted.
My other disappointment was that Rowling shared this bit of back story at all. As a Christian, I've spent the last eight years defending the books and pointing out to parents that they are stories written with Christian themes--they have nothing to fear from letting their children read the Harry Potter books. But many of those Christians who are Harry-haters are also very intolerant of gays. And one of my first thoughts was that by telling us that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling had undone everything that would reassure those fearful doubting parents who might rethink their decision and let their children experience a wonderful story. *sigh*
Well, it is what it is. Rowling thinks of Dumbledore as gay, so as the author, she must be right. However, I think that she missed her chance to have all the readers see him the same way by not putting that particular detail in the books themselves. If it was important to understanding the story, then it should have been there in the first place. (Personally, I'm glad it wasn't as I don't think it would have been appropriate in a book read by so many young children.)
I came to see after a few days and reading a lot of other people's thoughts, that my biggest disappointment was not that Dumbledore was gay, but that Rowling hadn't included it in the story and saying it after the books were done just seemed pointless and rendered the information useless to the understanding of the story. I've also realized that for all the times I said I wanted all that back story, all the details about all the characters, I don't. If it's not there already, it does not change the way I read it; if it's not there already, it just doesn't matter.
John Granger included links to articles written by Prof. John Mark Reynolds:
Dumbledore Is Not Gay: Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author
Dumbledore Is Not Hetero: Taking Stories More Seriously Than the Author II
Author's Intent: Taking the Story More Seriously Than the Author Part III
They are well worth reading. I feel that I can now move past this particular bit of information that will not change how I read the Harry Potter stories--and I'm glad that I have come to that place.
Pat
Monday, October 1, 2007
More thoughts on the end. . .or perhaps it should be, "the close"
I re-read Deathly Hallows again this month, even going so far as to take it with me in my carry-on when we flew down to Disneyland in the middle of the month for a long weekend with friends. No wonder my bag was so heavy. But it was nice to have it on the plane and in the evenings.
I've come to realize that with the ending of the last book, there are other things to which I'm saying good-bye. One of them is a forum where I've been chatting for a long time, through many iterations, as the original one crashed so many times that we finally gave up and started our own. So, I'm sad to find that the people I found on line back in 2001 are the ones who are most unhappy with Deathly Hallows, which puts me so much at odds with them, that I just can't join in the discussions any longer.
I think most of their problem stems from their convictions that the books should have ended differently, partly due to the second fan fic written by one of the women. I thoroughly enjoyed her first one, but the second one ended up feeling very contrived at the end as she managed to actually make Harry and Snape reconcile and work together in the post-Voldermort era. They all really liked it, but for me, that was the point where she strayed too far from the characters that Rowling created, and I couldn't go there. And then once I read Deathly Hallows, the idea that Snape would have survived and actually change that much was just way too out of character. Frankly, I find it a bit arrogant when said author speaks with such authority on what is wrong with Rowling's writing of the last book. This person's credentials as a writer are extemely limited, in my opinion. She wrote fan fiction, after all--jumping off into a story with established characters and story arc, basing her story on what was created by Rowling. While she did a very good job of keeping the characters "in character" (in the first book and part of the second one), and did some creative things with the plot, it still wasn't her original ideas. And then to criticize Rowling for writing the story the way she wanted is just the height of silliness. I hope that she will get out of fan fiction and actually write her own stories some day, and then her opinion might carry more weight. But I think at this point she is focused on just writing more fan fiction, continuing to hang on to JKR's coattails. But---I don't dare say that to her or to anyone from that forum.
I've tried telling them that I found Rowling's story with Snape compelling and so true to the character she had created, as well as why I really like all the Christian imagery--which they don't. That's surprising as well; some of them are Christians, including the author, some are nothing in particular and some are avowed atheists (which was the reason I left that forum for a while after Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, come to think of it). So, I'm saying good-bye, without really saying it. I've decided to just disappear rather than post some angsty sort of thing that people often post when they say farewell. Whether or not I stay in contact with any of them remains to be seen. The one who created the site with the help of her husband is the only one I've met when they have come to the Puget Sound area to visit her parents. So we'll see. It's always been up to her to give me a call when she's in town. But since I haven't posted there since my birthday, and then only to explain (once again) why I liked DH so much, I think any meeting we have might be a bit awkward and stained.
I've made notes throughout my Deathly Hallows book, with some at the end in the blank pages. I think later I'll go through and just post those comments here. There are still some things I'm sorting through, but one of the things I found most interesting is how much of Deathly Hallows ties back to all the other books, with a little comment here or there. Brilliant. One of the things that I liked best was that none of the characters were perfect. So often in a hero tale, the hero and some of his closest friends are without fault by the end of the story. It makes them much less human, much less real; as a reader, it's very difficult to relate to characters who are perfect and unlike anyone we've ever met or like ourselves.
Well, now that I've got that off my chest, it's time for some tea--blackberry sage, I think.
Pat
I've come to realize that with the ending of the last book, there are other things to which I'm saying good-bye. One of them is a forum where I've been chatting for a long time, through many iterations, as the original one crashed so many times that we finally gave up and started our own. So, I'm sad to find that the people I found on line back in 2001 are the ones who are most unhappy with Deathly Hallows, which puts me so much at odds with them, that I just can't join in the discussions any longer.
I think most of their problem stems from their convictions that the books should have ended differently, partly due to the second fan fic written by one of the women. I thoroughly enjoyed her first one, but the second one ended up feeling very contrived at the end as she managed to actually make Harry and Snape reconcile and work together in the post-Voldermort era. They all really liked it, but for me, that was the point where she strayed too far from the characters that Rowling created, and I couldn't go there. And then once I read Deathly Hallows, the idea that Snape would have survived and actually change that much was just way too out of character. Frankly, I find it a bit arrogant when said author speaks with such authority on what is wrong with Rowling's writing of the last book. This person's credentials as a writer are extemely limited, in my opinion. She wrote fan fiction, after all--jumping off into a story with established characters and story arc, basing her story on what was created by Rowling. While she did a very good job of keeping the characters "in character" (in the first book and part of the second one), and did some creative things with the plot, it still wasn't her original ideas. And then to criticize Rowling for writing the story the way she wanted is just the height of silliness. I hope that she will get out of fan fiction and actually write her own stories some day, and then her opinion might carry more weight. But I think at this point she is focused on just writing more fan fiction, continuing to hang on to JKR's coattails. But---I don't dare say that to her or to anyone from that forum.
I've tried telling them that I found Rowling's story with Snape compelling and so true to the character she had created, as well as why I really like all the Christian imagery--which they don't. That's surprising as well; some of them are Christians, including the author, some are nothing in particular and some are avowed atheists (which was the reason I left that forum for a while after Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, come to think of it). So, I'm saying good-bye, without really saying it. I've decided to just disappear rather than post some angsty sort of thing that people often post when they say farewell. Whether or not I stay in contact with any of them remains to be seen. The one who created the site with the help of her husband is the only one I've met when they have come to the Puget Sound area to visit her parents. So we'll see. It's always been up to her to give me a call when she's in town. But since I haven't posted there since my birthday, and then only to explain (once again) why I liked DH so much, I think any meeting we have might be a bit awkward and stained.
I've made notes throughout my Deathly Hallows book, with some at the end in the blank pages. I think later I'll go through and just post those comments here. There are still some things I'm sorting through, but one of the things I found most interesting is how much of Deathly Hallows ties back to all the other books, with a little comment here or there. Brilliant. One of the things that I liked best was that none of the characters were perfect. So often in a hero tale, the hero and some of his closest friends are without fault by the end of the story. It makes them much less human, much less real; as a reader, it's very difficult to relate to characters who are perfect and unlike anyone we've ever met or like ourselves.
Well, now that I've got that off my chest, it's time for some tea--blackberry sage, I think.
Pat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)