Posted on 10/25/2007 11:08:52 AM PDT by Antoninus
In an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail we read the following about J.K. Rowling:
However, during the 15-minute media conference that preceded the public appearance, the author grew testy as reporters circled back to Dumbledore and Grindelwald. "It's very clear" in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows how intense Dumbledore's feelings for the dark wizard are, she said, feelings that astute adult readers will recognize while children will simply construe as manifestations of friendship. The power of love is one of the major themes in the Potter oeuvre, she noted, and "certainly it's never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man [like Dumbledore] would never love other men.Fair enough. But I have the right to say that I don't want your propaganda anywhere near my children."He's my character," she asserted. "I have the right to know what I know about him and say what I say about him."
I consider myself a fairly astute reader but I didn't pick up on any "butt lust connection" between Dumbledore and the Dark Wizard, Grindelwald. I assumed that Rowling was somehow connecting the wizarding world to World War II, considering one was English, the other German, and they had their climactic fight in 1945. This scenario also fit in neatly with the message of "tolerance" which becomes increasingly overt and preachy as the series goes on. Grindelwald (the Nazi) is all about "pure blood" and not mixing with the mudblooded muggles. Meanwhile, Dumbledore (the noble Englishman) is attracted to the dark side but turns away. However, given Rowling's statement above, I guess I wasn't astute enough in my reading here given that I'm generally not prone to assume that two male characters who are friends are actually doing more with their wands than just casting spells. But hey, maybe I'm just old fashioned.
And now, predictably "experts" are urging parents to use Rowling's admission as a "teachable moment." God only knows what such "experts" are really expert at--perhaps hand signals under the stalls in men's rooms.
Personally, I'm glad that Rowling decided to spout off her assinine opinions on disordered types of sexuality before I finished my reviews on the Harry Potter series. To this point, I have been impressed with her skills as a writer but repeatedly perplexed by her confused sense of morality. Well, the perplexity has vanished. The confused sense of morality in the Potter books remains unresolved to the very end because it springs directly from the author herself.
Before the whole "Dumbledore's a homo" flap developed, Rowling was merrily going around telling everyone about the "Christian themes" in the books. And from reading Deathly Hallows in particular, you wouldn't have to be particularly "astute" to pick them up. Let's see, the chapter near the end of the book where Harry 'dies' is called "King's Cross". When Voldemort thinks he's killed Harry, he sends Narcissa Malfoy to check the body, at which point Rowling writes: "He [Harry] felt the hand on his chest contract; her nails pierced him."
There are other hints as well but they are not particularly well thought out and in the end do not reveal any unmistakably Christian message, unlike The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings. Rowling's message seems to be amor vincit omnia which is nice, but it's not anything that a pagan like Virgil wouldn't also agree to. And given Rowling's somewhat loose understanding of what constitutes "love", perhaps the message means even less than what it did for your average virtuous pagan.
As for "tolerance", Rowling, the good, worldly, cowardly Christian that she is, clearly worships at the altar of weakness--unable to take a strong stand or speak the truth to power. And like most of her graying intellectual brethren, Rowling's "tolerance" includes tolerating intolerable things that have been expressly condemned and forbidden since the earliest Christian times and before. Rowling's version of tolerant-über-alles Christianity is that false faith offered by the Rembert Weakland/Shelby Spong/Ted Haggard brand of pseudo-christianity. It reminds me of the donkey dressed in a lion's mane at the end of the Chronicles of Narina. Its fruits to date have been scandal, outrage, division, abuse, disease, sterility, and ultimately, empty churches and lost souls.
Perhaps all this is not so surprising because Rowling, it seems, is also supremely confused about her own personal belief system:
"The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot," Rowling admitted. "On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes — that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books.”Obvious within the books. Yeah. Moral confusion. Theological confusion. Personal spiritual confusion. Very obvious.
Rowling has also said in response to some of her Christian critics: "I don't take any responsibility for the lunatic fringes of my own religion.” Sounds pretty intolerant to me, but setting that aside, I'm guessing by that she'd put in the "lunatic fringe" the guy who said:
Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children; And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.That of course, would be St. Paul (Ephesians, 5:1-5) who also said directly following the above:
Let no man [or woman in this case] deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; Proving what is well pleasing to God: And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of. But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light. [Words in brackets mine]So that's it. I won't bother reviewing books 6 and 7 in detail because the author has settled the matter for me. According to Rowling, I am a "lunatic fringe" Christian. If I'm going to be accused of being such, then I might as well play the role--I don't want my kids reading anything that would allow her type of lukewarm gobbledeegook but ever-so-mainstream christianity into our home. Thankfully, I didn't buy a single one of the Potter books and my children are still too young to care. The books will now go back where they came from and I'll make sure to fill their places with better literature for kids which exists in abundance if parents will only take a minute and look around for it.
Well it's a good thing then, isn't it? But you might also want to keep your kids away from Moby Dick because I think the jury is still out between Queequeg and Ismael. You would also want to avoid Sherlock Holmes also because when Holmes leaves for his eventual 'death' at Reichenback Falls I believe he leaves from Charing Cross station. And for pity sake don't let them watch Breaker Morant because while awaiting execution the lead character talks about "awaiting crucifixion" and then when the firing squad shoots him his arms fly out as if he were hanging on a cross. Symbolism galore in all of those.
When and where are we going to have the book burning?
No one can accuse you of not giving the books a fair reading.
For some reason, my daughters have never been interested in the series so I never started reading it.
You win the weekly prize for missing the point completely.
As is his trademark, his post does not logically follow from anything that you posted. It's also the trademark for picking a fight without being able to state an argument.
Ok, amend that to read “No intelligent person can truthfully accuse you...”
*************
You object to someone not seeing Brokeback Mountain because it has a homosexual theme? Did you see it?
[sigh]
You had to be the first to imply that, any expression of disgust at the pendulum being shoved further toward the corrupt, must be synonymous with advocacy of witch hunts, burnings at the stake, and such.
What next, in your head, another Crusade??
May God save us from such either/or minds as yours.
Good that Rowling said it. Ironically however, it probably was not at all obvious from the book and one gets the impression that this is just a stunt thought up after the fact, for whatever reason. Of all the books' criticisms, nobody seems to have picked up on this.
The reaction to Rowling's statement seemed rather low key to me....more like a stunned silence.... and I get the distinct impression that the Potter fad is on the wane.
You did heroically well to wade through it all.
I consider myself a fairly astute reader but I didn't pick up on any "butt lust connection" between Dumbledore and the Dark Wizard, Grindelwald.
However, given Rowling's statement above, I guess I wasn't astute enough in my reading here given that I'm generally not prone to assume that two male characters who are friends are actually doing more with their wands than just casting spells. But hey, maybe I'm just old fashioned.
That says it all.
I saw that movie. Funniest damn thing I ever saw. Nobody ever told me it was a comedy.
I did, actually, because I liked Ang Lee's "Ride With The Devil". I thought it was kind of dull and was pretty disappointed with the whole thing.
Actually I think I've read all your Potter posts. And if memory serves, while you weren't praising him to the rafters you didn't seem all that upset with Rowling's books...until her recent comments. So that one comment changed everything in your opinion and turned the entire series from so-so to pure evil? Even though nothing in the books themselves seemed to indicate anything untoward?
And worse, if we protest, we get pilloried by people who otherwise claim to be "Cosnervative" as if the only options are a society that total embraces either corruption or a New Inquisition.
Where's the rational, UN-extreme, Conservative way?
Where's the simple acknowledgement that having a cultural atmosphere less like debauched Corinth, and more like Mayberry, would make the world a pretty darn decent place to live?
Why this inane insistence that not helping push the culture over the brink of The Abyss equals activly advocating institutionalized Puritanism, or some such brand of Morality Police?
Sadly, it seems as if we've come to the place where a plainspoken urge toward decency and wholesome living is regarded as a harbinger of the rise of a Fourth Reich of The Holy ROllers.
Honestly, that mentality needs to be utterly scorned as the back-handed advocacy of outright bodge and decadence that it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.