Whoa (OR The Hermeneutics of Harry Potter)

Dumbledore's gay?

My thoughts, in no particular order:

-Given that Dumbledore bears a striking resemblance to a certain Gandalf the Grey, was Rowling inspired by Ian McKellen?

-Why now?

-The Harry Potter books are bringing an interesting hermeneutical question to light. There's a longstanding debate on how best to read texts: do you read them as entirely independent entities, drawing your own conclusions, or do you try to read them the way the author intended? Usually, it's not particularly easy to figure out what the author intended. You can't go ask Dante how we're supposed to react to his finding all his role models in hell. But here we have J.K. Rowling traveling around the world telling children facts about the characters, their pasts, and their futures that do not appear anywhere in the book, and often aren't even really hinted at. The Dumbledore thing I'll buy, but Hermione becoming a wizard lawyer after the only mention of her thinking about law is her saying that she'd hate to be a lawyer? I guess it works, but I'd be hesitant to claim it's in the text.

A further example of what I'm talking about: In telling the world that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling also described the Harry Potter story as "a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry." While I think there is definitely bigotry in the book, and it is uniformly frowned up, my take is that the bigotry is more a function of people being good and people being bad. Yes, Voldemort wants to create a master race of pureblood wizards, but that's secondary to his general malevolence and his status as a dark wizard. Now, I'm not saying my reading is right, and according to Rowling, it's wrong, but the question I'm really trying to raise for your consideration is ultimately one about the final arbiter. Is it Rowling or the book? Who's righter?

Coming full circle in my post, it sorta reminds me of Tolkien's adamant claims that The Lord of the Rings is not about World War II. Whether he meant to or not, the WWII stuff is there. I think the key difference between Harry Potter and other cases like Tolkien, is that Rowling is not merely offering her own interpretation of the material but relating facts that are not mentioned in the book. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, but I do think it's interesting to consider.

Blogging Deathly Hallows III

Current Page: Finished. (and for the record, I have been for a while.

i will refrain from posting anything in this area about the book, so as not to spoil things, but I will say that I was pretty much totally satisfied. Was it life-altering? No, but I never really expected it to be.

(see comments for more stuff WITH SPOILERS. You've been warned, again.)

Blogging Deathly Hallows III

Current Page: 222

I expected to see a lot of people reading Deathly Hallows on the subway, but it seems to be the exact opposite. Whenever I break it out, people around me start whispering. Y'know, "wow, there it is!" and stuff like that. I think my reading the book on the subway has sparked more conversations than I feel entirely comfortable with.

(more in the comments.)

Blogging Deathly Hallows II

I'm officially starting to write these entries (or at least the spoilery parts of them, in the comments field. So don't read the comments if you don't want the book spoiled. You've been warned! Seriously, I really don't want to ruin the book for you!

Current Page: 125

Blogging Deathly Hallows

Well, I can't resist writing about the absurdly huge event that is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, so I think I'm going to blog as I go. I don't plan on giving away any spoilers, and if I'm writing anything that even comes close I'll give PLENTY of warning. Believe me, the last thing I want to do is ruin the book for people. I'm not that guy. Mostly I just wanna write down some general observations, mention any allusions I catch, and try to keep track of all the references to the older books that I haven't read since they came out. You can't hold that against me, right?

With that out of the way...

Current Page: 36

You can tell from the start that this is a very different Harry Potter book. Did anyone else notice the "We now present the seventh and final installment in the epic tale of Harry Potter" on the inside jacket cover? And how about the Aeschylus and William Penn quotes before the first chapter? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I am somewhat concerned that this whole thing is getting too big for its britches.

I'd remembered that Bellatrix and Sirius were related, but I didn't remember the exact connection. I looked it up on Wikipedia, where they have a remarkably complex family tree. (As an aside, Wikipedia is full of spoilers. I'm managing to evade them, but it's tough. I suggest you avoid it.) As I thought, the two are first cousins. What I didn't realize is she has two sisters; one is Tonks's mother (thus the niece references) and the other is Lucius Malfoy's wife Narcissa (thus the references to them being, well, sisters.)

The other thing that I had to look up was the mirror shard that Harry has in his trunk. Apparently, it is a two-way mirror. You use it by speaking someone's name, at which point you both can see each other and communicate. As far as I can tell, Harry has never actually used it prior to Deathly Hallows, and I have no idea how it got broken. Just from being in the trunk? Anyone know?

Okay, back to reading.