I've wanted to answer to this opinion piece ever since I read it months ago, not only because I feel a strong connection with Harry Potter & co. but because I also feel a pressing responsibility to expose the fallacy that all mormons have the same opinions and prejudices. so here I go.
first of all, I need to defend J.K. Rowling. I have little patience with a fan base that berates an author for her creative decisions. in my opinion, art is created for the artist, not for the sake of itself or for any other person. because of its nature, it is subject to personal interpretation by millions, which is the beauty of it after all, but that should not be a factor in its creation. Jo feels a great appreciation for her readers -- she couldn't have continued to write and publish her story without them -- but she does not have to answer to them for anything. she is the creator of Harry and his world and can do whatever she damn well pleases with it.
despite this right, Jo never tried to impose things on her readership. if she intended to turn her story into an "argument for gay rights" she would have done so. but she didn't. she didn't say anywhere in the books that Dumbledore is gay. knowing it after the fact, readers can find subtle hints that allude to the possibility, but nothing outright or even on the radar amongst all the plot lines and drama of Harry's adventures. Jo kept her character's controversial truth to herself until she was confronted with an outright question by a reader. it is exactly because of her profound respect for her readership that she felt she should tell the truth about Dumbledore. it is absolutely true that "just because she likes picturing a gay wizard does not mean that every other reader must do the same." Jo's revelation does not have to have any bearing on an individual reader. you don't like a gay Dumbledore? fine. there is nothing in the books that forces you to see him as such. imagine him differently. that is the magic of books.
I'm going to stop matching Lee point for point now because his next few paragraphs are so full of logical fallacies and incoherent justifications that they're not worth refuting. I'll just tell you how I feel. J.K. Rowling dedicates the seventh book to "you, if you have stuck with Harry to the very end." I first read sorcerer's stone when I was 11 and at some point, either with a book release or a movie release, I was the same age as the characters. I grew up with Harry. I learned with Harry. some would say that Jo got started with a children's book and, once her franchise was secured, could write adult themes. I disagree. the themes have always been the same. Harry has just grown to understand them. I think it was Jo's hope that her readers would too, but I'm afraid some of them forgot the lessons they learned on the way.
one of the grand motifs of the books is tolerance. as Hogwarts approached a time of dark threats and danger, the sorting hat's advice was to put differences aside and stand together. at the end of book seven, Harry and Malfoy have made a kind of peace. no, they will probably never be friends. Malfoy still likes the dark arts. Harry still despises them. but they have a measure of respect for each other, and tolerance. they can co-exist. and frankly, is that the best we can do? co-exist? I believe we can do better. it is easy to read a moving story and take heart in its good messages, but when Jo takes her message out of Harry's magical adventures and places them in our own context, all her bold advocates flee. why does a practical application of a truth suddenly erase its legitimacy? we lack the bravery of our favorite bespectacled hero.
Lee says, "Oh, and for those of us who don't jump up and down with jubilation over your fictional character's sexual preference, show a little tolerance and allow us the right to think what we will of Dumbledore." it is futile to point fingers and denounce everyone else as intolerant. both sides can do that. everybody take a step towards the middle and acknowledge that we all need to be more tolerant. and the right to think what you will? nobody has taken this right away from you, readers. the moment you stop believing in your power to imagine what you want, you lose that magic. Stephen King says that "to ignore the truth inside the lie is to sin against the craft in general and one's own work in particular." might I extend that to the recipients of the craft? to ignore the truth inside the lie is to demote it to a simple story, robbing it of its true intent and its true power to change who we are and what we believe in.
sorry about the repost, I was trying to fix the font. I am now officially giving up.
No comments:
Post a Comment