New interview with JK Rowling
Jo Rowling recently granted a lengthy interview to the Edinburgh "Student" newspaper in which she discusses religious opposition to the books, her depression, Dumbledore's sexuality and more. Below is an excerpt:How does she react to those who disagree with a homosexual character in a children's novel? "So what?" she retorts immediately "It is a very interesting question because I think homophobia is a fear of people loving, more than it is of the sexual act. There seems to be an innate distaste for the love involved, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There were people who thought, well why haven't we seen Dumbledore's angst about being gay?" Rowling is clearly amused by this and rightly so. "Where was that going to come in? And then the other thing was-and I had letters saying this-that, as a gay man, he would never be safe to teach in a school."
An air of incredulity descends on the room as if Rowling herself still can not believe this statement. She continues: "He's a very old single man. You have to ask: why is it so interesting? People have to examine their own attitudes. It's a shade of character. Is it the most important thing about him? No, it's Dumbledore for God's sake. There are 20 things that are relavant to the story before his sexuality." Bottom line then: he isn't a gay character; he's a character that just happens to be gay. Rowling concurs wholeheartedly.
Check out scans of the remainder of the interview here at TLC.
EDIT: We now have a full text version of the interview below:
Minister of Magic
Adeel Amini delves into JK Rowling’s chamber of secrets
Student, 2008 March 4
It’s difficult not to love a city where you can bump into JK Rowling in a centrally-located coffee shop, politely ask for an interview, and four agonising months later have a private audience with arguably the most famous author in the world.
“Please don’t call it that,” she insists, with a modesty that seems slightly suspect at first. I might argue with her considering the multiple awards, infamous fortune, and sales north of 400 million worldwide, but think better than to anger a personality already alleged to have an inherent dislike for interviews. Instead I introduce her to a friend who, primarily to avoid the ire just mentioned, serves as an adequate cloak with her swot-like knowledge for my complete ignorance of all things Potter (a Muggle, I believe the term is).
But this isn’t about Harry, not entirely. This is about the woman that his risen to the pinnacle of modern literature in the last decade, certainly in terms of sales and stardom. The final Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released in July 2007 and was labelled the most valuable manuscript in history. All that time without the little wizard – does she miss him at all? “Yes,” she says, after slight hesitation. “But it’s getting better. Immediately after finishing obviously we were going through the editing process so I was still working on it. It wasn’t an abrupt end, and it really hit me on my birthday, which is the last day in July,” which Potter fans will know she shares with her hero, “and it hit me like a demolition ball at that point.
“I’d been preparing for it for so long. For the last three months of writing the seventh book, I did have a constant and ever-present sense that this was it. This was the end. It was an ending that I’d planned for so long, and that I’d looked forward to writing for so long. So it really was split down the middle: half elation, and half a sense of desolation. And then we went through the editing process and then obviously you get the publication and then ten days later what hit me was, I can’t go in that world any more. It’s gone.”
It is hard to ignore the beguiling articulacy with which Rowling utters every sentence, befitting an author of her stature. Undoubtedly it stems from this genuine, and plainly visible, passion for the books, the characters, the world that they all come from; from this transparency of emotion, you immediately realise that this certainly was not a money-spinning escapade written to fill her coffers. Surely, in that case, you couldn’t say that she’d never go back to such an important part of her life?
“Well, no, you couldn’t,” she laughs. “No one can possibly understand. It’s quite an isolating feeling because of course there are many writers who have written within a certain world but mine was 17 years. And it was 17 years that contained a lot of turbulence in my life; Harry was my constant. This was the thing that was always there, it was like a fantastic relationship that was my centre… It was gone. And it was huge,” she laments, as if still in mourning.
We change tack slightly and talk about the recent ITV documentary that aired around Christmas 2007. The film, supposedly the most definitive account of Rowling’s life thus far, followed a year of her life with surprising melancholy, complete with some very personal revelations. One such admission was the understandable discomfort Rowling felt when fans and paparazzi began to follow her every move. At this stage in her life, then, almost a year on from the publication of the final book, what does she miss more – Harry Potter or her anonymity? There is a pause before she answers. “That’s an excellent question. No one’s ever asked me that.” Take that, ITV.
I prod her some more, saying it must be quite hard having strange student journalists coming up to her in Starbucks and asking for an interview… “Truthfully, it’s gone up and down,” she admits at last. “There are definitely moments in the ten years that I was being published that I would have given almost anything to have the anonymity back, but those were bad times and they never actually had anything to do with people coming up to me in Starbucks. Because people coming up to me in Starbucks are always charming. Always.”
I cannot help but scoff, partly in disbelief but also to vainly steer the conversation away from any crass endorsement of a coffee conglomerate. “It’s true, it’s true!” Rowling protests. “You know, as far back as I can remember… I wouldn’t need all the fingers of one hand to think of anyone who’s ever approached me who has been in any way rude – I’m setting aside the eBayers, they’re very aggressive but that’s not about being a fan, that’s about making as much money as possible so they can be quite scary – but there were times when I would have given anything to have the anonymity back. I felt under siege at certain times. I never expected journalists to come and bang on my front door. There was a perion in the middle where it was very stressful.”
At the risk of sounding pushy and insensitive, I insist on an answer to my earlier question. “Right now I miss Harry more,” she declares. “I do. I miss him as a character, but the interesting thing is he was never the most popular character in the books. In fact there was a poll a while ago and something like 2% of readers said that Harry was their favourite character. There are much more obvious characters to love: Hagrid, Ron, everyone loves Ron. I mean, who doesn’t like Ron…” she laughs, in an indefinable half-woman, half-schoolgirl-giggle way that pops up throughout our conversation.
I wonder if she had read any of her own books again, given their international renown. “The only one I’ve gone back and re-read since publication is the seventh book, which is my favourite.” Rowling had apparently planned the ending very early on, shortly after the genesis of the entire series. “Yes, that’s the point to which I was working for 17 years so of course it was going to be a big cathartic experience and I’d given a lot of thought to it. But also it was immensely liberating not to be writing a school story any more, just to get them out of Hogwarts, even though I love Hogwarts. You probably could squeeze a good few more stories out of Hogwarts, there’s so much there but the constraints that a school timetable places upon your characters are huge. And never having to write another Quidditch match,” she laughs. “The thing that will keep me away from Hogwarts for the next generation is having to do blummin’ Quidditch again!”
Still, it must feel great to know that the Harry Potter books are adored by children and adults alike, that it has become a classic in a sense, and that it will be passed down for generations? “It’s an amazing feeling. Actually what you said last is the most incredible feeling.” My friendadmits that she will indeed read the books to her children, prompting a noticeable wave of unbridled joy to overcome the author. “That is the most meaningful thing to me.”
Rowling struggles for words, genuinely overcome by emotion. My earlier doubts have been fully assuaged; false modesty this certainly is not. “That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling, to think that you’ve physically – not to get too Pollyanna about it – but you’ve physically brought people of different ages, generations even, together and it’s something that everyone’s shared… there’s nothing, nothing better than that.” Saccharine as it might be, I cannot for a single second doubt that Rowling means every single word she says, such is her affecting heart-on-sleeve candour.
Moving on to a more contentious issue, Rowling has categorically said that she does believe in a higher power, a statement reinforced by her childhood church-going (“Till I was 17,” she clarifies). It must be difficult to reconcile her religious beliefs with those that denounce Harry Potter as anti-Christian, I wonder aloud. Rowling’s expression does not change a fraction. “There was a Christian commentator who said that Harry Potter had been the Christian church’s biggest missed opportunity. And I thought, there’s someone who actually has their eyes open.”
A degree of misinterpretation inevitably results from ambiguity. Doesn’t a certain section dislike Harry Potter intensely? “Oh, vehemently,” says Rowling, “and they send death threats.”
My ears prick up. Death threats? For this apparently harmless, softly-spoken doe-like individual in front of me? “Once, yeah. Well, more than once. It is comical in retrospect. I was in America, and there was a threat made against a bookstore that I was appearing at, so we had the police there.” Nevertheless she still attended, “obviously things were checked out and I’d never let children go there for a second if I thought there was any substance to it.”
Death threats notwithstanding, what has been the worst, or best, comment she’s ever received? She pauses for what seems like an eon. “Well, best… so many. I suppose any comment from a fan telling me what the books meant to them in a personal way is always amazing to her because people in their late teens-early 20s did literally grow up with Harry. He aged, they aged, and he was a big factor in their childhood which is an incredible, incredible thing for me to know.”
Rowling is almost endearingly uncomfortable in her reluctance to talk about how her work has been criticised. “I can cope with a bad review. No one loves a bad review but a useful review is one that teaches you something. But to be honest the Christian fundamentalist thing was bad. I would have been quite happy to sit there and debate with one of the critics who were taking on Harry Potter from a moral perspective.
“In a sense we have traded arguments through the media. I’ve tried to be rational about it. There’s a woman in North Carolina or Alabama who’s been trying to get the books banned – she’s a mother of four and never read them. And then – I’m not lying, and I’m not even making fun, this is the truth of what she said – quite recently she was asked [why] and she said ‘Well, I prayed about whether or not I should read them, and God told me no’.”
Rowling pauses to reflect on the weight of that statement, her expression one of utter disbelief. “You see, that is where I absolutely part company with people on that side of the fence, because that is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, ‘I will not open my mind to look on your side of the argument at all. I won’t read it, I won’t look at it, I’m too frightened’. That’s what’s dangerous about it, whether it be politically extreme, religiously extreme… In fact fundamentalists across all the major religions, if you put them in a room they’d have bags in common!” she laughs loudly, before sobering. “They hate all the same things, it’s such an ironic thing.”
It is heart-warming to see Rowling engage so actively in topics like this while being able to laugh openly at this point in her life. It is common knowledge that Rowling started off with nothing but a shoddy flat in Leith and a baby daughter to look after. That was 17 years ago – how does she feel she has grown as a person since then? “I’m much happier now, but not for the reasons people would expect at all.” Rowling is clearly alluding to her recent Forbes listing as the second richest woman in entertainment, second only to Oprah Winfrey. Her humility stops her from even wanting to elaborate. “I’m happier because I’m doing what I was meant to do, which I wasn’t at 25. I was an eternally insecure person at 25 so now I think I’ve probably got up to quite a healthy level. I still get extremely nervous when I have to speak in public, and it would be quite wrong to think that every time I write a page I think ‘instant bestseller’.”
Yet Rowling appears to remain calm when addressing 17,000 people for the launch of the final book. “I comforted myself with what I always comfort myself with when these kinds of things come up – I thought I might die before it happens,” her tone becomes almost apologetic, “I know this sounds morbid, it’s not intended to sound morbid, but I did think… We could all be dead, I’m not gonna stress about it until it comes. Prior to that, before speaking in public, I always used to think: ‘It can’t be worse than childbirth.’” She laughs uproariously.
If there’s one constant in both Rowling’s interviews and her work, it is this concept of morbidity, which, I cannot help but notice, she briefly covers up, defends, and then skirts over. It is no secret that Rowling suffered from depression when living in Leith before the books were published, a strong metaphor for which is found in the Harry Potter series through the Dementors. We discuss the wide documentation of the fact that depression is on the increase among young people and particularly university students these days.
“I definitely had leanings towards depression from quite an early age too,” Rowling acknowledges, “but it’s an extremely hard condition to recognise in yourself. What’s sad in a way is that the thing that made me go for help, the thing that made me face the fact that this was not a normal state that I was in, was probably my daughter, and a lot of people your age, very young adults, would not have that. She was like a touchstone in a sense, she was something that earthed me, grounded me, and I thought ‘this isn’t right, this can’t be right, she cannot grow up with me in this state’.”
Rowling talks at length about the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy that proved to be her salvation. Is it something she’s recommended to others, then? “I would recommend it highly. I think it was absolutely invaluable. Well it worked for me so obviously I’m very ‘pro’ it. I think I was in counselling for nine months, I could have done longer. I probably came out of it a little bit early but…” She pauses. It all worked out for the best, I venture. “Absolutely. And it gives you strategies for thereafter. I’m worried now that you’ve said that to me about depression and I want to tell everyone that they must go and get help…!”
I argue that perhaps Rowling’s endorsement may help remove the stigma attached to the ideas of depression and counselling. “The funny thing is, I have never been remotely ashamed of having been depressed. Never. I think I’m abnormally shameless on that account, because what’s to be ashamed of? What is there to be ashamed of?” She abruptly changes topic. “I think it’s a very difficult time to be young at the moment. I worry about it, I’ve got a teenage daughter and I think that our culture at the moment is… terrified of young people. Do you not think? It really worries me. There seems to be this cultural acceptance of young people as threatening. Not everywhere, but in certain ways they’re talked about and reported.”
I cannot help but speculate what lies behind this word ‘reported’. Rowling has had numerous problems with the press in the past, and I ask her whether she believes that there is a link between what she is referring to and the Heat-magazine culture young people buy into. I bring up the topic of the recent admonition she received from the press for commenting on young girls’ body image. At once Rowling becomes more serious than she has ever been thus far. “That’s something that’s been particularly weighing on me. There are a few people I’ve written to and there are a couple of anorexics in that category.” Nevertheless, people were up in arms about her statements.
“Well, let them be,” she says defiantly. “They always are when you say something like that but, to my mind – I have to be very careful what I say here,” Rowling pauses, delicately measuring her words to avoid further trouble. “It is a fact that on websites that are pro-anorexic – and they do exist – they do use images, certain images of certain famous women as what they call ‘thinspiration’. It’s a sickness. I would argue that the body image promoted by certain sections of the fashion industry is pro-anorexic. I absolutely refuse to believe that certain women are eating and exercising normally and maintaining that body shape. I refuse to believe that.”
From one controversy to the next, it seemed inevitable that the topic of Dumbledore’s sexuality would croup up. How did Rowling deal with the fallout? “It was funny, mostly!” she exclaims. “I had always seen Dumbledore as gay, but in a sense that’s not a big deal. The book wasn’t about Dumbledore being gay. It was just that from the outset obviously I knew that he had this big, hidden secret and that he flirted with the idea of exactly what Voldemort goes on to do, he flirted with the idea of racial domination, that he was going to subjugate Muggles. So that was Dumbledore’s big secret.
“So why did he flirt with that?” she asks. “He’s an innately good man, what would make him do that? I didn’t even think it through that way, it just seemed to come to me, I thought, ‘I know why he did it. He fell in love.’ And whether they physically consummated this infatuation or not is not the issue. The issue is love. It’s not about sex. So that’s what I knew about Dumbledore. And it’s relevant only in so much as he fell in love and was made an utter fool of by love. He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and a bookish life.”
Clearly some people didn’t see it that way. How does she react to those who disagree with a homosexual character in a children’s novel? “So what?” she retorts immediately. “It is a very interesting question, because I think homophobia is a fear of people loving, more than it is of the sexual act. There seems to be an innate distaste for the love involved, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There were people who thought, well why haven’t we seen Dumbledore’s angst about being gay?” Rowling is clearly amused by this, and rightly so. “Where was that going to come in? And then the other thing was – and I had letters saying this – that, as a gay man, he would never be safe to teach in a school.”
An air of incredulity descends on the room, as if Rowling herself still cannot believe this statement. She continues: “He’s a very old single man. You have to ask: why is it so interesting? People have to examine their own attitudes. It’s a shade in a character. Is it the most important thing about him? No. It’s Dumbledore, for God’s sake. There are 20 things that are relevant to the story before his sexuality.” Bottom line, then: he isn’t a gay character; he’s a character that just happens to be gay. Rowling concurs wholeheartedly.
At this point an hour has passed – far more time than we were initially granted. I begin some quick-fire questions. though Rowling’s penchant for long, but nonetheless engaging, responses prevent them from being just that. The last thing she read, I ask? “He died tragically but it was Harry Thompson’s This Thing of Darkness. That was the last contemporary thing I read. Very, very good.”
I ask her about her next projects, one labelled a ‘political fairytale’ and the other aimed more at adults. She confesses that while the former still isn’t finished, the latter may never see the light of day at all. I try to tease out more information, even with emotional blackmail, but Rowling remains infuriatingly tight-lipped. “Sorry, I can’t, I can’t!” she laughs. “The minute I say anything, immediately my life becomes more complicated.” Understandable, given the fresh respite from the dustbin scavengers. What about the notorious Potter encyclopaedia, the new bane of her existence and the root of recent legal trouble? “Well, I am kind of working on it… I am working on it in fact. I just don’t want to have to work to a deadline, but I am slowly piecing it together.”
The final minutes of our conversation meander through various topics, somehow resting on stand-up comedy, at which point Rowling displays excitement of teenage proportions, gasping and shrieking. “I always wanted…” she begins, before addressing the dictaphone in front of her, “Can I just say on the record this is not what I’m writing… but I’ve always wanted to write a novel about a stand-up comedian. That is not what I’m writing though so if something comes out next week, that’s not me, I’m not doing it! But for ages, I had a real thing about it,” she reveals.
My time is up, despite a distinct reluctance to leave from both parties. It is at this point I announce my Muggle-dom, evoking yet more laughter from Rowling as she accuses me of “faking it” – a charge which, as tempting as it might be for pedestal-pushing British journalists, I simply cannot place on her. For all her success, for all her international renown, Rowling remains just as vulnerable and just as unassuming as anyone else, almost bewildered by the fuss around her – happier, it seems, to have family than to be earning millions. It is refreshing, to say the least, that she still roams the city in this same unpretentious manner… though given how this interview came about, I expect you might not see her in a Starbucks any time soon.
EDIT: We now have a full text version of the interview below:
Minister of Magic
Adeel Amini delves into JK Rowling’s chamber of secrets
Student, 2008 March 4
It’s difficult not to love a city where you can bump into JK Rowling in a centrally-located coffee shop, politely ask for an interview, and four agonising months later have a private audience with arguably the most famous author in the world.
“Please don’t call it that,” she insists, with a modesty that seems slightly suspect at first. I might argue with her considering the multiple awards, infamous fortune, and sales north of 400 million worldwide, but think better than to anger a personality already alleged to have an inherent dislike for interviews. Instead I introduce her to a friend who, primarily to avoid the ire just mentioned, serves as an adequate cloak with her swot-like knowledge for my complete ignorance of all things Potter (a Muggle, I believe the term is).
But this isn’t about Harry, not entirely. This is about the woman that his risen to the pinnacle of modern literature in the last decade, certainly in terms of sales and stardom. The final Harry Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, was released in July 2007 and was labelled the most valuable manuscript in history. All that time without the little wizard – does she miss him at all? “Yes,” she says, after slight hesitation. “But it’s getting better. Immediately after finishing obviously we were going through the editing process so I was still working on it. It wasn’t an abrupt end, and it really hit me on my birthday, which is the last day in July,” which Potter fans will know she shares with her hero, “and it hit me like a demolition ball at that point.
“I’d been preparing for it for so long. For the last three months of writing the seventh book, I did have a constant and ever-present sense that this was it. This was the end. It was an ending that I’d planned for so long, and that I’d looked forward to writing for so long. So it really was split down the middle: half elation, and half a sense of desolation. And then we went through the editing process and then obviously you get the publication and then ten days later what hit me was, I can’t go in that world any more. It’s gone.”
It is hard to ignore the beguiling articulacy with which Rowling utters every sentence, befitting an author of her stature. Undoubtedly it stems from this genuine, and plainly visible, passion for the books, the characters, the world that they all come from; from this transparency of emotion, you immediately realise that this certainly was not a money-spinning escapade written to fill her coffers. Surely, in that case, you couldn’t say that she’d never go back to such an important part of her life?
“Well, no, you couldn’t,” she laughs. “No one can possibly understand. It’s quite an isolating feeling because of course there are many writers who have written within a certain world but mine was 17 years. And it was 17 years that contained a lot of turbulence in my life; Harry was my constant. This was the thing that was always there, it was like a fantastic relationship that was my centre… It was gone. And it was huge,” she laments, as if still in mourning.
We change tack slightly and talk about the recent ITV documentary that aired around Christmas 2007. The film, supposedly the most definitive account of Rowling’s life thus far, followed a year of her life with surprising melancholy, complete with some very personal revelations. One such admission was the understandable discomfort Rowling felt when fans and paparazzi began to follow her every move. At this stage in her life, then, almost a year on from the publication of the final book, what does she miss more – Harry Potter or her anonymity? There is a pause before she answers. “That’s an excellent question. No one’s ever asked me that.” Take that, ITV.
I prod her some more, saying it must be quite hard having strange student journalists coming up to her in Starbucks and asking for an interview… “Truthfully, it’s gone up and down,” she admits at last. “There are definitely moments in the ten years that I was being published that I would have given almost anything to have the anonymity back, but those were bad times and they never actually had anything to do with people coming up to me in Starbucks. Because people coming up to me in Starbucks are always charming. Always.”
I cannot help but scoff, partly in disbelief but also to vainly steer the conversation away from any crass endorsement of a coffee conglomerate. “It’s true, it’s true!” Rowling protests. “You know, as far back as I can remember… I wouldn’t need all the fingers of one hand to think of anyone who’s ever approached me who has been in any way rude – I’m setting aside the eBayers, they’re very aggressive but that’s not about being a fan, that’s about making as much money as possible so they can be quite scary – but there were times when I would have given anything to have the anonymity back. I felt under siege at certain times. I never expected journalists to come and bang on my front door. There was a perion in the middle where it was very stressful.”
At the risk of sounding pushy and insensitive, I insist on an answer to my earlier question. “Right now I miss Harry more,” she declares. “I do. I miss him as a character, but the interesting thing is he was never the most popular character in the books. In fact there was a poll a while ago and something like 2% of readers said that Harry was their favourite character. There are much more obvious characters to love: Hagrid, Ron, everyone loves Ron. I mean, who doesn’t like Ron…” she laughs, in an indefinable half-woman, half-schoolgirl-giggle way that pops up throughout our conversation.
I wonder if she had read any of her own books again, given their international renown. “The only one I’ve gone back and re-read since publication is the seventh book, which is my favourite.” Rowling had apparently planned the ending very early on, shortly after the genesis of the entire series. “Yes, that’s the point to which I was working for 17 years so of course it was going to be a big cathartic experience and I’d given a lot of thought to it. But also it was immensely liberating not to be writing a school story any more, just to get them out of Hogwarts, even though I love Hogwarts. You probably could squeeze a good few more stories out of Hogwarts, there’s so much there but the constraints that a school timetable places upon your characters are huge. And never having to write another Quidditch match,” she laughs. “The thing that will keep me away from Hogwarts for the next generation is having to do blummin’ Quidditch again!”
Still, it must feel great to know that the Harry Potter books are adored by children and adults alike, that it has become a classic in a sense, and that it will be passed down for generations? “It’s an amazing feeling. Actually what you said last is the most incredible feeling.” My friendadmits that she will indeed read the books to her children, prompting a noticeable wave of unbridled joy to overcome the author. “That is the most meaningful thing to me.”
Rowling struggles for words, genuinely overcome by emotion. My earlier doubts have been fully assuaged; false modesty this certainly is not. “That is a wonderful, wonderful feeling, to think that you’ve physically – not to get too Pollyanna about it – but you’ve physically brought people of different ages, generations even, together and it’s something that everyone’s shared… there’s nothing, nothing better than that.” Saccharine as it might be, I cannot for a single second doubt that Rowling means every single word she says, such is her affecting heart-on-sleeve candour.
Moving on to a more contentious issue, Rowling has categorically said that she does believe in a higher power, a statement reinforced by her childhood church-going (“Till I was 17,” she clarifies). It must be difficult to reconcile her religious beliefs with those that denounce Harry Potter as anti-Christian, I wonder aloud. Rowling’s expression does not change a fraction. “There was a Christian commentator who said that Harry Potter had been the Christian church’s biggest missed opportunity. And I thought, there’s someone who actually has their eyes open.”
A degree of misinterpretation inevitably results from ambiguity. Doesn’t a certain section dislike Harry Potter intensely? “Oh, vehemently,” says Rowling, “and they send death threats.”
My ears prick up. Death threats? For this apparently harmless, softly-spoken doe-like individual in front of me? “Once, yeah. Well, more than once. It is comical in retrospect. I was in America, and there was a threat made against a bookstore that I was appearing at, so we had the police there.” Nevertheless she still attended, “obviously things were checked out and I’d never let children go there for a second if I thought there was any substance to it.”
Death threats notwithstanding, what has been the worst, or best, comment she’s ever received? She pauses for what seems like an eon. “Well, best… so many. I suppose any comment from a fan telling me what the books meant to them in a personal way is always amazing to her because people in their late teens-early 20s did literally grow up with Harry. He aged, they aged, and he was a big factor in their childhood which is an incredible, incredible thing for me to know.”
Rowling is almost endearingly uncomfortable in her reluctance to talk about how her work has been criticised. “I can cope with a bad review. No one loves a bad review but a useful review is one that teaches you something. But to be honest the Christian fundamentalist thing was bad. I would have been quite happy to sit there and debate with one of the critics who were taking on Harry Potter from a moral perspective.
“In a sense we have traded arguments through the media. I’ve tried to be rational about it. There’s a woman in North Carolina or Alabama who’s been trying to get the books banned – she’s a mother of four and never read them. And then – I’m not lying, and I’m not even making fun, this is the truth of what she said – quite recently she was asked [why] and she said ‘Well, I prayed about whether or not I should read them, and God told me no’.”
Rowling pauses to reflect on the weight of that statement, her expression one of utter disbelief. “You see, that is where I absolutely part company with people on that side of the fence, because that is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is, ‘I will not open my mind to look on your side of the argument at all. I won’t read it, I won’t look at it, I’m too frightened’. That’s what’s dangerous about it, whether it be politically extreme, religiously extreme… In fact fundamentalists across all the major religions, if you put them in a room they’d have bags in common!” she laughs loudly, before sobering. “They hate all the same things, it’s such an ironic thing.”
It is heart-warming to see Rowling engage so actively in topics like this while being able to laugh openly at this point in her life. It is common knowledge that Rowling started off with nothing but a shoddy flat in Leith and a baby daughter to look after. That was 17 years ago – how does she feel she has grown as a person since then? “I’m much happier now, but not for the reasons people would expect at all.” Rowling is clearly alluding to her recent Forbes listing as the second richest woman in entertainment, second only to Oprah Winfrey. Her humility stops her from even wanting to elaborate. “I’m happier because I’m doing what I was meant to do, which I wasn’t at 25. I was an eternally insecure person at 25 so now I think I’ve probably got up to quite a healthy level. I still get extremely nervous when I have to speak in public, and it would be quite wrong to think that every time I write a page I think ‘instant bestseller’.”
Yet Rowling appears to remain calm when addressing 17,000 people for the launch of the final book. “I comforted myself with what I always comfort myself with when these kinds of things come up – I thought I might die before it happens,” her tone becomes almost apologetic, “I know this sounds morbid, it’s not intended to sound morbid, but I did think… We could all be dead, I’m not gonna stress about it until it comes. Prior to that, before speaking in public, I always used to think: ‘It can’t be worse than childbirth.’” She laughs uproariously.
If there’s one constant in both Rowling’s interviews and her work, it is this concept of morbidity, which, I cannot help but notice, she briefly covers up, defends, and then skirts over. It is no secret that Rowling suffered from depression when living in Leith before the books were published, a strong metaphor for which is found in the Harry Potter series through the Dementors. We discuss the wide documentation of the fact that depression is on the increase among young people and particularly university students these days.
“I definitely had leanings towards depression from quite an early age too,” Rowling acknowledges, “but it’s an extremely hard condition to recognise in yourself. What’s sad in a way is that the thing that made me go for help, the thing that made me face the fact that this was not a normal state that I was in, was probably my daughter, and a lot of people your age, very young adults, would not have that. She was like a touchstone in a sense, she was something that earthed me, grounded me, and I thought ‘this isn’t right, this can’t be right, she cannot grow up with me in this state’.”
Rowling talks at length about the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy that proved to be her salvation. Is it something she’s recommended to others, then? “I would recommend it highly. I think it was absolutely invaluable. Well it worked for me so obviously I’m very ‘pro’ it. I think I was in counselling for nine months, I could have done longer. I probably came out of it a little bit early but…” She pauses. It all worked out for the best, I venture. “Absolutely. And it gives you strategies for thereafter. I’m worried now that you’ve said that to me about depression and I want to tell everyone that they must go and get help…!”
I argue that perhaps Rowling’s endorsement may help remove the stigma attached to the ideas of depression and counselling. “The funny thing is, I have never been remotely ashamed of having been depressed. Never. I think I’m abnormally shameless on that account, because what’s to be ashamed of? What is there to be ashamed of?” She abruptly changes topic. “I think it’s a very difficult time to be young at the moment. I worry about it, I’ve got a teenage daughter and I think that our culture at the moment is… terrified of young people. Do you not think? It really worries me. There seems to be this cultural acceptance of young people as threatening. Not everywhere, but in certain ways they’re talked about and reported.”
I cannot help but speculate what lies behind this word ‘reported’. Rowling has had numerous problems with the press in the past, and I ask her whether she believes that there is a link between what she is referring to and the Heat-magazine culture young people buy into. I bring up the topic of the recent admonition she received from the press for commenting on young girls’ body image. At once Rowling becomes more serious than she has ever been thus far. “That’s something that’s been particularly weighing on me. There are a few people I’ve written to and there are a couple of anorexics in that category.” Nevertheless, people were up in arms about her statements.
“Well, let them be,” she says defiantly. “They always are when you say something like that but, to my mind – I have to be very careful what I say here,” Rowling pauses, delicately measuring her words to avoid further trouble. “It is a fact that on websites that are pro-anorexic – and they do exist – they do use images, certain images of certain famous women as what they call ‘thinspiration’. It’s a sickness. I would argue that the body image promoted by certain sections of the fashion industry is pro-anorexic. I absolutely refuse to believe that certain women are eating and exercising normally and maintaining that body shape. I refuse to believe that.”
From one controversy to the next, it seemed inevitable that the topic of Dumbledore’s sexuality would croup up. How did Rowling deal with the fallout? “It was funny, mostly!” she exclaims. “I had always seen Dumbledore as gay, but in a sense that’s not a big deal. The book wasn’t about Dumbledore being gay. It was just that from the outset obviously I knew that he had this big, hidden secret and that he flirted with the idea of exactly what Voldemort goes on to do, he flirted with the idea of racial domination, that he was going to subjugate Muggles. So that was Dumbledore’s big secret.
“So why did he flirt with that?” she asks. “He’s an innately good man, what would make him do that? I didn’t even think it through that way, it just seemed to come to me, I thought, ‘I know why he did it. He fell in love.’ And whether they physically consummated this infatuation or not is not the issue. The issue is love. It’s not about sex. So that’s what I knew about Dumbledore. And it’s relevant only in so much as he fell in love and was made an utter fool of by love. He lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love and I think subsequently became very mistrusting of his own judgement in those matters so became quite asexual. He led a celibate and a bookish life.”
Clearly some people didn’t see it that way. How does she react to those who disagree with a homosexual character in a children’s novel? “So what?” she retorts immediately. “It is a very interesting question, because I think homophobia is a fear of people loving, more than it is of the sexual act. There seems to be an innate distaste for the love involved, which I find absolutely extraordinary. There were people who thought, well why haven’t we seen Dumbledore’s angst about being gay?” Rowling is clearly amused by this, and rightly so. “Where was that going to come in? And then the other thing was – and I had letters saying this – that, as a gay man, he would never be safe to teach in a school.”
An air of incredulity descends on the room, as if Rowling herself still cannot believe this statement. She continues: “He’s a very old single man. You have to ask: why is it so interesting? People have to examine their own attitudes. It’s a shade in a character. Is it the most important thing about him? No. It’s Dumbledore, for God’s sake. There are 20 things that are relevant to the story before his sexuality.” Bottom line, then: he isn’t a gay character; he’s a character that just happens to be gay. Rowling concurs wholeheartedly.
At this point an hour has passed – far more time than we were initially granted. I begin some quick-fire questions. though Rowling’s penchant for long, but nonetheless engaging, responses prevent them from being just that. The last thing she read, I ask? “He died tragically but it was Harry Thompson’s This Thing of Darkness. That was the last contemporary thing I read. Very, very good.”
I ask her about her next projects, one labelled a ‘political fairytale’ and the other aimed more at adults. She confesses that while the former still isn’t finished, the latter may never see the light of day at all. I try to tease out more information, even with emotional blackmail, but Rowling remains infuriatingly tight-lipped. “Sorry, I can’t, I can’t!” she laughs. “The minute I say anything, immediately my life becomes more complicated.” Understandable, given the fresh respite from the dustbin scavengers. What about the notorious Potter encyclopaedia, the new bane of her existence and the root of recent legal trouble? “Well, I am kind of working on it… I am working on it in fact. I just don’t want to have to work to a deadline, but I am slowly piecing it together.”
The final minutes of our conversation meander through various topics, somehow resting on stand-up comedy, at which point Rowling displays excitement of teenage proportions, gasping and shrieking. “I always wanted…” she begins, before addressing the dictaphone in front of her, “Can I just say on the record this is not what I’m writing… but I’ve always wanted to write a novel about a stand-up comedian. That is not what I’m writing though so if something comes out next week, that’s not me, I’m not doing it! But for ages, I had a real thing about it,” she reveals.
My time is up, despite a distinct reluctance to leave from both parties. It is at this point I announce my Muggle-dom, evoking yet more laughter from Rowling as she accuses me of “faking it” – a charge which, as tempting as it might be for pedestal-pushing British journalists, I simply cannot place on her. For all her success, for all her international renown, Rowling remains just as vulnerable and just as unassuming as anyone else, almost bewildered by the fuss around her – happier, it seems, to have family than to be earning millions. It is refreshing, to say the least, that she still roams the city in this same unpretentious manner… though given how this interview came about, I expect you might not see her in a Starbucks any time soon.
Posted by Ciaran on Mar 9th |
195 Comments
Visitor Comments
Oh, and HP_Freak, I do realize that you're just a bored child looking for attention, but I'll humor you. No, I don't hate you for being a Christian. I hate you for being a moron. You're NOT a Christian. Not a real one, anyway. I'll bet your mom and dad are phony Christians, too. See, there are very few genuine Christians in the world. You'd be lucky to meet enough of them to count on one hand in your lifetime.
Jo is such an incredible woman. We all pretty much would give anything to be her, even the guys. She's so genuine and clever! I just adore her. And this was one LUCKY young journalist!! Good article, too.
I agree with HP_Freak in (very small) part: I think homosexual acts are wrong, but that love and not hatred/discrimination is the answer. I think, though, that Jo is not as far off the mark as you think, HP_Freak. Mark the paragraph that begins,
I
SPEW, you're wrong. End of story. People like you are the ones who tried to keep Blacks and Whites from marrying, too. Nowadays, anyone who still feels that mixed race marriages are wrong are thought of as idiots. Soon, very soon, people who are anti-gay will be looked on as idiots, too. They already are, but the more intelligent portion of the population. :-)
[sorry, it cut me off] I agree with HP_Freak in (very small) part: I think homosexual acts are wrong, but that love and not hatred/discrimination is the answer. I think, though, that Jo is not as far off the mark as you think, HP_Freak. Mark the paragraph that begins, So why did he flirt with that? she asks. She's right, I think, in that it made great sense in the storyline. But I don't think Dumbledore's sexuality is a huge stride in the favor of the sexual-orientation-equali ty movement, rather the opposite. Think: she says that he "lost his moral compass completely when he fell in love"; that could be in more ways than one. His love was indelibly linked with so much that is indisputably wrong. And he had to overcome that love to do the right thing, and afterwards distrusted that part of himself and "led a celebate and bookish life." [continued]
[sorry, it cut me off] I apologize, but I see that as a pointer as clear as can be in favor of what I think Jesus
Spew, where does Jesus talk about homosexuality in the Bible? Look it up, I'll wait. :-)
i really dont understand what the big problem is... like no joke. everyone get over it. dumbledores gay..... easy to get. isnt it? everyone who thinks that its so wrong for him to be gay, fine so be it stop reading the books then. and dont come onto a harry potter fan website if u hate it so much. because we dont need to hear your ignorant thoughts.
[sorry, it cut me off again] I apologize, but I see that as a pointer as clear as can be in favor of what I think Jesuss response to this issue might be: I do not condemn you, but go and sin no more. (paraphrased from somewhere in the gospels
You know what's funny? People like SPEW and HP_freak believe that gay people are going to Hell. But OTHER "Christians" believe that SPEW and HP_Freak are going to Hell, for reading Harry Potter. And surely there's some other group of "Christians" who are certain that the Potter-hating folks are going to Hell, too. Because what is faith, but license to condemn other people to Hell? :-) Religion is a disease on humanity. There will never be peace while religion exists.
[sorry, it cut me off AGAIN] I apologize, but I see that as a pointer as clear as can be in favor of what I think Jesuss response to this issue might be: I do not condemn you, but go and sin no more. (paraphrased from somewhere in the gospels; sorry, I can
[I can't believe it cut me off] I apologize, but I see that as a pointer as clear as can be in favor of what I think Jesuss response to this issue might be: I do not condemn you, but go and sin no more. (paraphrased from somewhere in the gospels; sorry, I cant go looking for it right now!) He weakened for a period (and who among us doesnt do that, me included? I dont blame him for that, but love him all the more) and then, I think (and this is just my own interpretation), repented and went on to be the best Hogwarts headmaster the world has ever seen. --- Im sorry if I offend anyone with this; I certainly dont mean to. I hope that, even if we disagree, you can respect my opinion as fully as I respect yours. :-) (Btw to AnyaMarcos: I hope you dont count me among the unintelligent gay-haters. Dont you think people who disagree with you as strongly as you disagree with them, though, might listen to you a little bit better if you were the tiniest bit civil? Just a suggestion. The same goes to HP_Freak.)
SPEW STOP SPAMMING! JESUS CHRIST! NOBODY CARES WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. It's cutting you off for a reason. It's the site way of telling you to STFU. Seruiously, NOBODY HERE cares what you are trying to say.
SPEW, think about this. You're a good person, you don't hurt anyone, you mind your own business, you obey the laws, you give to charity, you do all the things that a "good" person does. But because you love someone of the same gender, a group of people who have never met you, and don't know you, believe that you are evil and are going to Hell. See, the biggest problem you and your kind have, SPEW, is that you are incapable of seeing things from a gay person's perspective. What gives you the right to say that they are wrong? They aren't hurting you. That's why no, you are NOT entitled to your opinion. Because your opinion is bigotry.
wow Jo. You're freakin amazing. Are you God?
Where did I say gay people are all going to Hell? Look it up, I will wait? Yes the bible does say homosexuality is wrong, and I think it would do you more good to look it up yourself. I'm also wondering where I said I hate gay people? Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait. In fact, I said love was the answer, not hate. I think SPEW your interpretation is fairly well thought out, but the key word is repent. Anyamarcos, SPEW isn't saying being gay is wrong...GOD is. Take it up with him if you disagree...I wish you luck because you will need it.
Look, Dumbledore isn't gay. Rowling's explanation was that his love blinds him to Grindelwald's evil. It doesn't have to be gay love, does it? It could've just been a strong friendship. I'm sure it would quite difficult for anyone to accept the harsh truth that their friend is evil and needs to be stopped.
Ok, can we all just CALM DOWN here and "agree to disagree"? Like Jo said, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE if Dumbledore is gay? I'm a Christian and it doesn't bother me. Yes, I was extremely shocked when i found out, but i got over and I matured, realizing that I need not be shocked -- gays and lesbians are still PEOPLE, after all. They deserve to be treated just like everyone else -- which is why Dumbledore's sexuality doesn't need to be something "horrible." In fact, what kind of a world would it be if we were all the same? We need to be different.
HP_Freak, everything I said about you is true. And there is no God. That is a FACT. Believers just choose to believe in God because they're afraid to die, and they want an excuse to think that the people they don't like are going to Hell. God is an invention of man. Nothing you say will change that.
michaelnrdx, Rowling said that DD was gay. She created him. If she said he was gay, he was gay. It doesn't mean he ever acted on the impulse. Seventhsoul, would you agree to disagree with the Nazis? How about the KKK? I cannot agree to disagree when I am faced with blind bigotry. Anti-homosexuality is bigotry, pure and simple. It's just one of the last "acceptable" forms of bigotry. But not for much longer. People are becoming more accepting. And that terrifies people like SPEW and HP_Freak, because they want to hold on to their hatred.
HP_freak, you said that by accepting homosexuality, people were bringing on eternal danation. You said that you didn't think Jo could really be a Christian, because she made DD gay. You said that you hoped you got lots of angry replies, because you wanted to upset people. That is hate. You may not have said it in so many words, but you have amply demonstrated your hatred. That's why you're not a real Christian, but a sham. And as I said, phony Christian children are raised by phony Christian parents. So by your posts here, you have demonstrated that your parents are not real Christians, either. None of this changes the fact that you're just a pissy little cuntrag desperate for attention. I hope your mom gets cancer and dies.
I love how everyone gets so mad at Jo over the whole homosexuality thing. It's her books, she can do whatever she wants with them. She could have made Dumbledore a porn star if she wanted, and that's her right because they're her books. Her ideas, her property. I believe in God and Jesus and all that, and I'm okay with homosexuality, BTW.
Anya, just because someone dosen't like gays dont bash them... First off it takes you to thier level and secondly they are just half the time saying that stuff to get a reaction. As to freak and spew I think you both need to broaden your minds and see that love is one of gods blessing weather it be manXwoman, parent to child, friend to friend, manXman, or womanXwoman. Listen, really listen to god and you'll see that so much of the bigotry spewed by the church is mistranslation at best and outright lies at worse. Mabie you should make friends with a gay person. They are just normal people like you and me after all, and it seems that you still need to learn that fact.
I actually have had a few friends that are Gay. I like them just fine. Doens't mean I think its right, but I have no problem with them as people, and I have no problem telling them about Jesus either. It is interesting though how many people really don't take the time to read what I said and jump right to angry personal attacts. Thats ok, I'm not ashamed of my beliefs nor does it bother me to be called names or be hated. It is not my wish that anyone go to hell but rather scares me that so many will. Ask yourself, in 2 billion years will the burning stop? Eternity is a long time to gamble over. Get angry, call me names, call it fear mongering, do whatever you like, but don't ever say nobody told you.
you guys are crazy. i don't agree that being gay is wrong. live and let live as they say. SPEW and HPFREAK are entitled to believe in whatever they believe and they were not nasty about it at all. whereas anya actually told someone to "go kill yourself". Personally i have no problem with gay people and i'm not very religious but anya you should try to be less hypocritical and accept peoples beliefs and natures. Also there is no more ignorant statemant than the one in the interview about gay people not being fit to teach in schools....hmm when did being gay mean you were a paedophile? crazy
Glassjaw... I totally agree... If bring gay meant you were a pediophile then I'd just shoot myself here and now! I've never hurt anyone, let alone a kid! I'm going to college for a teaching degree, and being gay has nothing to do with that. I'd be more worried about all these nuttso straight teachers out the sleeping with there students. It will be a sad day when homophobic comments like "gays shouldn't teach" are accepted by society.
I love how JKR talked about a MILLION things other then Dumbledore being gay, and yet that's all that is talked about on these boards. Why don't you talk about the other books she said she is writing or the fact that JKR got death-threats? People are telling others to get over Dumbledore's sexual orientation, and yet they harp on and on about it! Yeesh.
Spew and HP Freak, the best thing to do is ignore AnyaMarcos. It is a prejudice, hateful thing (human being is just too civilized a word for it) who loves to come on here and pick fights and work people up. It is known for it. Ask any of the other CC's. You are wasting your time trying to make Anya see your point. It is a close minded horrible thing that loves to cause drama and upset people. To EVERYONE: Ignore Anya, do not let it bait you into an argument with it.
My OPINION as follows: JKR claims to have always seen DD as gay. Why hasn't any one who has interviewed her ask why she did not write him as such then? If DD being gay was no big deal to her, why hasn't anyone asked her then why she would include a homosexual character in a children's book? If JKR reasons that DD once flirted with dominating muggles because he fell in love with another man, why hasn't anyone asked her why she does not make this clear in any of her books? If her belief is that fear of homosexuality is a fear of love, why hasn't anyone asked her why she would project her adult beliefs into a CHILDREN'S book? If there are 20 things more important than DD's sexuality, why hasn't anyone asked her why she made it a point to tell a 10 year old child that DD was gay?!? I love the books that are Harry Potter. And I will continue to love them for what they are. However In my opinion, JKR is a coward, and the more she states in interviews, the less I think of her as a person. If she was as courageous as her fans say, she would have made it clear in her books that DD was homosexual. And not announce it to the world after all the excitement of the final book had died down. There was never any reason to ever reveal such a thing to a child regarding a child's book. It was completely irrelevant to anything she had written, and makes it point to point this out herself. To me it was nothing more than a publicity stunt.
I don't believe it was a publicity stunt. I don't believe homosexuality is something to be hidden from children. That'd be like hiding that Harry was a heterosexual, because this is a CHILDREN'S book. Where would she have written in that Dumbledore was gay? She didn't have time/space to tell about Dean Thomas's past concerning his father in the books. She told about it on her site. There was no place to fit that in, but I don't see anyone freaking out over that. I think what bothers me most is the fact that people seem to think children can't know about homosexuals. Why? Should they be hidden from the heterosexual lifestyle, too? What's the real difference besides preference in a gender? Also, as far as the Bible goes, in the chapters of Leviticus that go against homosexuality, there are chapters talking of never touching the skin of a pig, wearing clothes woven from two different types of material (linen and woollen), cutting the sides of ones beard, or causing baldness to your head (cutting your hair). We have to take some things with a grain of salt and creative interpretation.
i dont really care if dumbledore is gay, even if personally it is against my morals, its JKR character and she can do whatever she wants to with HER characters! jo is so amazing people just need to leave her alone
AnyaMarcos you are a freak, and you need to stop bashing peoples personal beliefs and opinions on this site,,,,ps(no one really cares what you think!)
As a very moral gay man, I am most proud to be a fan of J.K. Rowling today.
DUMBLEDORE IS GAY AND THAT'S OKAY.
I totally agree, emma_sophia!!! Anya, I can't believe you - and I actually agreed with you at first. Yes, prejudice against gays is wrong (in my opinion), everyone should be treated equally and have the same rights. But how can you come on here saying that, and then you start bashing people who choose to have a religion? (ex. "Religion is a disease on humanity") You are totally entitled to believe what you choose, but don't go attacking what other people choose to believe. I just thought you were being a tad hypocritical there, my friend.
O.K., I'm shutting up now everybody. Not trying to start any arguments :) Bye!
Religion IS a disease. It makes people think they have the right to hurt others. Most wars are based on religion. A lot of the violence in the world is because of religion. And as I've already shown, through people like SPew and HP_freak, most hate is religion-based as well. God is the worst invention ever created by man. Oh, and lilbecky, are you 12? Calling me "it" says more about you than it does about me, you little cuntrag. And HP_freak, go back and read your first post again. You WANTED to upset people. You said so yourself.
HP_freak, you asked me to show you where you said all gay people are going to Hell. You said (on the previous page) "Making homosexuality acceptable is a huge mistake, and one that risks bringing eternal judgment against anyone who tries." And you said again, above "Ask yourself, in 2 billion years will the burning stop? Eternity is a long time to gamble over." And then you say "It is interesting though how many people really don't take the time to read what I said and jump right to angry personal attacts. " But you WANTED that, Freak. You wanted to be attacked. As you said on the previous page, "I hope I get lots of comments of protest, Ill know then that I struck a nerve." See, you're the very worst kind of person, Freak, becasue you go through life thinking you're a good person. At least I admit to being evil. You're trying to fool the world into thinking you love Christ, when you don't.
LOLOL! Oh this is too good... OK, one reason that some people speak out against homosexuality is because they have those feelings themselves, right? I mean, look at what goes on on the Religious Right in the USA, for pete's sake. Now look at this. Note the top post on the page. This tells us everything we need to know about HP_Freak, and why he/she is so OMGGays_are_EBIL! http://forums.govteen.com /showthread.php?s=1955937 d0a22696c75e57de2afc50ea7 &t=147560
AnyaMarcos, I want you to know that I love you. That is all. Goodnight.
Wow, I love how a simple interview ends up in an all-out argument. As has been said before, agree to disagree. My hat's off to those of you who have been civil, and notable others *coughHP_freakcough* who have been, well, far less then civil really shouldn't post on message boards if they can't be mature about it. Otherwise, what a great interview! Really well done, and love Jo as always. Such unique views on really key issues. I really can't wait for her next publication and of course, for the 'Scottish Book' which I'm ecstatic to hear that she's working on.
Trying to earn God Points, Spew? Saying you love someone on the Internet is easy. Who don't you do something difficult, like asking forgiveness from someone that you've wronged? Or spending a weekend working in a homeless shelter? See, Spew, Christians like you don't bother doing anything really difficult or unpleasant to show that they love Jesus. They just say they disagree with homosexuality, because that's EASY. It doesn't take any extra effort, or require you to change your behavior. You can look like a good Christian, without doing much at all.
Heather, do you agree to disagree with the Neo Nazis? Do you agree to disagree with the KKK? Do you agree to disagree with Radical Pro-Lifeers who bomb abortion clinics? Do you agree to disagree with Muslim extremists who bomb schools and hospitals? There comes a time when "agreeing to disagree" does NOT cut it. I do NOT agree to disagree with those who would condemn an entire group of people, simply because they don't love the right gender.
I am so jealous of the author of this...*sigh* If only I were so lucky! Running into J.K. Rowling in a Starbucks?!!
Let's argue about Starbucks for awhile, the gay thing is getting old. STARBUCKS SUCKS!!!!
Let's argue about Starbucks for awhile, the gay thing is getting old. STARBUCKS SUCKS!!!!
Whoa you people have gotten WAY to crazy about this whole thing: He's a FICTIONAL character for goodness' sake!! Does his sexual orientation really matter all that much?? And since when did this comments board become a religion debate??
I LOVE HER. She is just the cutest, cuddliest thing I just want to squeeze the heck out of....
Wow, just wow. Some people get WAY too intense about things. Anyway, I thought the interview was awesome and can't wait for JKR's next publication. I also can't wait for the HP encyclopedia~! Whatever comes next is sure to be a great read.
Back to Top