It's been a long time since I've posted anything here, but it's not due to lack of interest in Harry Potter. Quite the contrary. I've been rereading all the books, with the intention of stopping after each one for a few comments (or more) relevant to how my understanding of the story has changed since we now have all seven of the books. However, I have found that, mixed with real life and actually reading some books that were not Harry Potter, I've been just as compelled to jump into the next book as soon as I've finished whichever one I was reading. So at the moment, I'm about half-way through Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
And now comes the news from Warner Brothers that they are doing what I thought they should have done with Goblet of Fire, Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince. Well, at least with the last two, and they should have made Prisoner of Azkaban about 10 minutes longer to include more of the back story for the Marauders and the talk at the end that Dumbledore and Sirius have with Harry.
The word from WB is that the splitting of Deathly Hallows into two movies is for artistic reasons and not monetary. Yes, well, I don't think many people are buying that, but whatever. I'm just very pleased that they will have the opportunity to really include all the richness of the story in this last view we'll have of Harry Potter on the big screen. Very pleased indeed.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Happy New Year!
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)