Well yeah, on the other hand, do you really want the academics to get their grubby paws on this literature? They tend to sod stuff up. Generations of English kids have been put off shakespeare by their ways.
Yeah, well they can go and die in a ditch as far as I'm concerned. When academics get their mitts on things, they turn to crap. Look at Andy Warhol. Oh, and don't call me stud, it's so far from the truth you wouldn't believe it
The point is, there is 'deeper' content in the HP books than people in general give them credit for. It's also children's writing- so it's not fair to compare it to great adult authors being as children have different tastes.
Yeah, thank God we've finally got some social commentary about Nazis. It's about time someone shows those jerks for what they really are.
edit: Maybe next we'll find out that the whole Hogwarts thing was a delusion that Harry used to escape an abusive aunt and uncle. Now THAT would be interesting.
And does anyone else find it odd that Dumbledore had a pet Phoenix? Can you say "flaming"?
I don't think there were too many comments on this in the thread:
The only possible response I can think of to that is "WTF?!" I mean, seriously, WTF?!
First of all, is "Wizard Headmaster" a job typically reserved for straight men? It sure sounds gay.
Second of all, gay men cannot be wizard headmasters. They just can't. They can't turn into pink mongooses and dance the fandango on the sun, either.
Third of all, you know what shows there's no limit to what people of various groups can do? Real people from those groups doing real things that people can actually do. Some stupid character whose sexuality had nothing to do with the either the story or his fictional, impossible job title, doesn't show anything about what gays and lesbians can do. I could write a story with a talking dog. Does that show that there's no limit to what dogs can say?
There's no powerful message here. There's nothing but an afterthought. I won't speculate on why Rowlings decided to say that Dumbledore is gay, but it doesn't mean anything, either in terms of social commentary or in terms of story. Was Dumbledore really gay in the story? Is his gayness actually a part of the book? Does it mean any more than if we were to suddenly find out that Jay Gatsby was a shape shifting alien from Mongo?
The books should stand on their own, regardless of what Rowlings says now. Dumbledore's sexuality is not part of the stories.
Although, I have to admit, if I were Rowlings, I would constantly be revealing "tidbits" like this after the publication of my last book in the series, just to mess with the fans.
Actually Shakespeare is studied entirely to the detriment of Shakespeare.
Shakespeare's plays were the mass entertainment of the Elizebethan era, and are reasonably entertaining, powerful, interesting PLAYS...
children are taught to study them by reading and analysing the bloody scripts. Is it any wonder that people learn to hate them.
Shakespeare would be turning in his grave if he thought that generations of 11 year olds were being forced to read (but not watch performed) a midsummer nights dream (panto), macbeth (psychological thriller) or Romeo and Juliet (Chick Flick or Psycho Stalker film depending on your POV) - they just don't work, nor were ever intended to be works of literature.
You're right about them being the mass entertainment of their day. When I was doing Shakespeare for O-Level (see, I was a clever lad and did 'O' levels! ) we were all taken to the theatre to see 'Romeo and Juliet'. The teacher said afterwards that we were brilliant becasue we behaved just like an authentic crowd of Elizabethan 'groundlings'!
But I don't agree that being the mass entertainment of their age means that Shaespeare's plays aren't also great works of literature. (Although some of them are far better than others.) The genius of Shakespeare was that his best plays worked on many different levels, and the use of language was fantastic. Passages which make no sense to the modern schoolchild are actually choc-full of meaning and subtlety when they are explained by someone who understands them. That is why they should be studied, rather than simply watched.
For example, my son and I watched 'Twelfth Night' on the TV a couple of years ago and heloved it, despite the fact that much of the language was lost on him. Whereas I had done it at school, so I understood a lot more of what the play was about.
Actually when I studied them, we where usually made to watch it on TV then forced to read the damn book. Personally I found that worse because you got a hint of how something could be entertaining (Typically we watched some "made for school kids" version performed on stage on the TV which is, lets be honest, in many ways as bad as being forced to read a play in the first place) Then we read selected parts of the play