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
Religion debate always follows a debate about homosexuality, Hagrid. That's because most of the people who are anti-gay these days blame their bigotry on the Bible. Now if the Bible didn't exist, those people would still be anti-gay, it's just how they are. They just happen to have a 2,000-yr-old fictional book that they can point to, instead of taking responsibility for the bigotry themselves. I personally believe that 2000 or so years from now, people will be living their lives based on Harry Potter, because somewhere in there people are going to forget that he was ficitonal.
oh. and about the whole gay thing.....where would jo have fit that into the plot? does it really change anything he did? i mean....the only difference that we know he's gay now is cuz we know WHY he did the things he did with that whole hallows situation. i mean seriously people...seriously...get over it.
aaaa...jo's always so smart and cool when she does interviews. and there hasn't been many interviews lately but this one was particularly interesting. and good writing by the interviewer.....even though hes/shes a muggle but i will forgive him/her for that
Okay HP FREAK I have seen this misunderstanding a lot but let me clear something up for you. It's not like JKR just woke up one morning and was like hey I think I will start a big thing and announce that Dumbledore is gay. I was at the reading where she first said it. There was a Q&A portion and a little girl asked her "Dumbledore is always talking about the power of love, did he ever find love himself?" It was the first time anyone had directly asked her, and so she answered the girls question. So, no she is not a hypocrite, get your facts straight kid. She might never have mentioned it if she was never asked. They are HER books, if she says it isn't relevant than take her word for it.
Anya, I disagree with what you said earlier. I am Catholic and I consider myself a good one. I don't follow the bible word-per-word because there are a lot of things that i disagree with; the homosexual thing is one. BUT I have never believed nor will I ever that Jesus is or was a fictional character. And although I cannot prove that he wasnt, and you also cannot prove that he was. You are "bashing" Christians the way that some Christians are "bashing" gay people here. You can't generalize and say that Christians do nothing, they do plenty: don't they advocate anti-abortion, helping the less fortunate, equality of genders and all that stuff? I mean, don't judge every Christian from the few (hundred) ignorant ones.
And by the way AnyaMacos, you are making yourself seem really unintelligent by making comments like that to another member. How do you know that both of HP_Freak's parents are still alive or that someone close to them hasn't commited suicide. Insensitivity and cruelty are not exactly signs of a great personality. Say your own bit but w hy don't YOU try to do it intelligently? I am sure JKR would be very dissapointed to know that a fan would say something like that to someone over her books. HP_Freak is also a fan too. Please think before you type.....
Wow, AnyaMarcos, you are extremely wrong. Maybe it's because you weren't raised in a Christian home..... but I'm honestly not afraid of death. I'm afraid of living for a short span of time and then having it mean nothing. God is my reason for living, not dying. Any I cry for those that are going to Hell, I do not condemn them there or wish such a fate on ANYONE. Only God can condemn. Not EVERY Christian is the same. There are all kinds with all different beliefs so stop stereotyping. It is very foolish.
Well said amortentia143 and 5885morrisr, I agree with both of you.
Advice for HP_freak and others: If someone tells you something, question it. Examine it. If you still come out on the other side with the same opinion, great. Use critical thinking to formulate your own opinions about life and people. You don't have to believe everything the Bible or the Pope tell you. The god-thing gave you the ability to ask questions. Use it or lose it.
For SIRIUS3001 and others alike who think that Jo's making publicity with DD=gay (was hard for me to accept it first just because I pictured him in love with lady who died early, but it's completely OK now): think that the book is about young Harry Potter, and NOT young Dumbledore! It's seen throu the eyes of Harry and he (as most others around) see just and old wise lonely man who leed a bookish (and asexual!) life. How could Harry see or learn it, if DD's love story died deep in his heart so many years ago, even before Harry's parents were born?? The fact is only matters for die-hard fans who want to know ALL groundings and psycological lines. So, that's why it's not in the book like the Din Thomas back story (why nobody's angry with that, for instance?) and has nothing to do with not enough courage of Jo, who is just admirable.
As a most profound fan of HP and JKR, I cannot for one second believe that Dumbledore is gay. I'm most definitely not a homophobic, but it ruins the image that I have pictured Dumbledore as, and it just doesn't fit into his character at all. So sorry guys but I disagree with many of your comments, but that's my opinion. And also I don't see the point of bringing it up after a character has been killed in a series of books, I find that a little harsh and narcissistic.
I hope you feel really happy and fulfilled for having brought so much joy to the world.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. :\ I'm Christian, but Dumbledore being gay...doesn't matter at all. It's mildly interesting, but, who cares otherwise? No one is hysterical over Neville Longbottom marry Hannah Abbot, and how it shouldn't have been brought up because the books are over with. So why with Dumbledore being gay? Who CARES if he liked men? His favorite jam is raspberry too, but no one is getting angry over that if they themselves prefer strawberry. It's just another Harry Potter fact. When I read the bible, I can discern between things that are outdated and the basic guidelines. We aren't stoning people anymore (mostly, anyways), we wear clothes made from two different materials, and we cut our hair. I mean, c'mon.
Oh, and to those saying, 'i'm not JUDGING, I'm just sad at how many people will be burning eternally, can you really handle that', Try Matthew 7:2 of the Bible: "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." Wow. If you're going to talk about playing with fire, hp_freak....
How about the Ron is everybody's favotite character and not Harry?! It's Harry for me without a doubt! I mean Ron is funny but a way not so deep and interesting as Harry. Anybody agree?
5885morris, you display the typical self-centeredness I have come to expect from "Christians," by assuming that I wasn't raised Christian. I was raised Christian. I just came to realize (as many other intelligent people are, every day) that the entire thing is a big con. Religion was invented to control people. If Jesus did exist, he was a great person, but he wasn't holy or the son of God, because God does not exist. The people who call themselves Christians these days could care less about what Jesus taught. Oh, and you DO fear death. Death is the end. You don't go to Heaven after you die, you just DIE. And that is what you fear. Also, HP_Freak is not really a Potter fan, the only time he posts here is when he's bashing homosexuality. Oh and amortentia, don't confuse what Christians are supposed to do with what they actually do. Yes, they are supposed to do the good things you listed. But few do. Why should they, when all they have to do is say they hate gay people in order to go to Heaven? :-) And morbidmind, you saying that you aren't homophobic is like a White person saying they aren't racist, they just don't like Black people.
:\ I consider myself a Christian who doesn't fall into the mold of 'anti-everything, and I can hide behind the Bible so as to avoid being examined by anyone'. I don't appreciate being told God doesn't exist. Argue with people to a certain extent, but please do not bash a religion that that person is a part of. They are hiding behind something they feel no one can argue with, and for that reason, it gives all Christians a bad rap. I don't appreciate that, either. This should stay on the intended subject, Harry Potter, and people should quit using their religion as a shield and a 'safe' way to be holier than thou, pun not entirely intended.
And while I don't agree with HP_Freak (at all. I mean, he/she basically said "I'm not judging, but I feel sorry for everyone that accepts this since they are going to burn for 2 billion years?" Gee, that's not judging or anything), it's STILL too much to say go kill yourself to make your parents happy for once by any standard. I'm sorry, that is WAY overboard. HP_Freak's comments are quite ridiculous at best, but it still didn't call for that. That's pretty immature. And you made the assumption that his/her parents were 'fake Christians' too. Why is it wrong for someone to make the assumption that you weren't raised Christian, but you are allowed to pretty much say anything you please and make any assumption you want?
1. AnyaMarcos, how do you know what I do and do not do? 2. I think you bringing up the anti-abortion bombers is an interesting point. I think abortion is wrong, but people who would murder a person for performing or having an abortion are even worse. Just like I believe homosexual acts are wrong - and it doesn't stop me from loving those who disagree - but think it far worse to believe in a doctrine of hatred instead of love. Did anything I have written sound hateful or bigoted? If it did, I'm sorry because I truly didn't mean it to. 4. Diasphora (cool name btw), I have really questioned this issue. I went through a period my freshman year when my friend 'came out', and I seriously considered whether I was wrong. I thought and read and prayed about this a LOT, and eventually came to the opinion I hold now. I hope you still think that's great! :-) (She knows how I feel, and she and I are still friends.) [continued; sorry!]
5. As I think I said in my post before, it doesn't bother me at all that Dumbledore is (i mean, was *tear*) homosexual; he's still one of my favorite characters. The news hasn't changed how I think of him at all (besides the relevant plot points of course), just like knowing someone's sexual orientation doesn't change how I think of them in real life. I wish people (I don't mean everybody!) would read my post and judge it on what I say, not infer things from what other people have said. 6. I agree for the most part with Susan14, lena, spirit, and 5885morrisr, although they may not agree with me. 7. Sorry to use a list (it helps me; I get confused!) and be so long, but I don't want anyone to think I was being homophobic or hateful at all. :-)
Uh, AnyaMarcos, Harry Potter is (as I have said before) purely fictional. People 2000 years from now won't "forget" that the books are fictional because they are clearly meant to be a story, not a basis for religious beliefs. Just look inside the cover of many of the books and you'll see that it clearly states that it is a work of fiction. And we now have better forms of recording history than they did in Biblical times, so anyone who would confuse the HP series as facts are highly dillusional. JK Rowling did not intend her books or characters to be worshiped or any of that. You might as well worship Chewbaka of StarWars along with Harry. I would also like to say that amortentia143 is right; you're bashing Christians and homosexuals alike and you have no reason to.
Okay, going WAY back to where AnyaMarcos started asking me if I would "agree to disagree with the Nazis...KKK..." etc. You misunderstood me, and BADLY, at that. Everyone seems to be misunderstanding except for Heather!!!! I was NOT TALKING about agreeing to disagree with HP Freak's endorsement of anti-homosexual ideas. I was merely TRYING to be a peacemaker, but I guess I got shot at by AnyaMarcos, who seems to be doing a lot of that to a LOT of people. And BTW, Anyamarcos, my own mother had cancer, TWICE, so please don't make jokes about people's moms dying of cancer or people going and killing themselves. I've noticed your hurtful and highly opinionated comments many times before, so please just STOP before you make this world even more full of hate. All I'm asking is for you to be PEACEFUL, okay! And to quote McGonagall: "Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world." Love all, accept all, hate none, AnyaMarcos. Hate "...is a disease..."
Okay AnyaMarcos, from what you said YOU are obviously the one who fears death because you believe it is the end, not me. And yet again you do show your stupidity by telling another member to kill themselves. That was very childish and rude. And because of how you view Christians you OBVIOUSLY did not grow up in a real Christian home because I was raised to help others and wish no bad upon anyone. I have devoted my life to doing all of the things that you told Amortentia Christians don't actually do. I actively help others, as REAL Christians do. I'm not talking about the "Christians" you grew up with who go to church and that is that. Christianity is an active discipleship. That's what is real.
AnyaMarcos, somehow you keep confusing anti-homosexual ideas with Christian ideas! NEWS FLASH: NOT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL!! As many of us have said before, we can be strong Christians and also love homosexuals, too. I agree with 5885morrisr; Christianity is not about just sticking to what people THINK you "have to do" to be Christian. I'm a Protestant, and the basis of our religion is "saved by grace through faith", NOT through "good works" or by going to church and possibly being a false Christian anyway.
Yes along with what seventhsoul said, not all Chrisitans are against homosexuality. I don't feel it is my place to condemn others, only God knows what is really right and wrong. I clapped and shouted with excitement along with the rest of Carnegie Hall when JKR announced it and I am a good Christian. Stop stereotyping and assuming about others lives and actions. There are so many types of Christians out there that you have never met.
Nothing AnyaMaros can say can offend me, I've heard it all. My wife died last year and My Parents are still alive. I"m raising two children on my own, one of which is older then most here. I will gladly hide behind the Bible and stand in front of it. It convicts me just as it does anyone else, I have never and will never claim to be a perfect Christian. It used to be that the most well known verse in the Bible was John 3:16 , For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotton son, that whosoever believeth on him, shall not perish, but have eternal life. Now its Matthew 7:1, Judge not, that ye be not judged. Problem is, no one bothers to finish reading the passage that comes from. Jesus is talking about judging others while doing the same thing. Funny tho, how some people argue so much against the bible, then use a verse from it out of context to make their own argument. I do not judge JKR or anyone here, including homosexuals. I never said they WERE going to hell, I said they are risking it, big difference. I don't personally know what JKR or anyone else here believes in their heart, so I can't make an assumption that someone is going to Hell. The bible does say however, that you will know a true believer from their "fruit" (works). (that does not mean that works is a means of salvation) (continued on next post)
For all of those out there who condone homosexuality and say they are Christians, they may want to research the bible about it. (not saying they are not Christians, because Many Christians, including me, can be wrong about things or simply taught wrongly). How can one cling to God
How can one cling to Gods promise of Salvation in one part of the bible but not believe another part. What promises then do we hold on to and which ones do we then discard, or do we simply choose to believe all the good things God has done for use and reject all the bad that we dont agree with our dont like. Its like saying ok mom, thanks for letting me go to the movies with my friends tonight, but I dont accept your rule that I be home at midnight. Sounds a bit selfish doesnt it? Let me say again, Im against homosexuality, but that does not mean I dont like homosexuals and its not Anti-gay, its anti SIN. I can make the same arguments against someone who is cheating on their wife or having sex out of marriage. If you want to apply the logic of some on here that being against homosexuality means I hate gays, does that then mean that being against heterosexuals who have sex before marriage that Im anti Heterosexual as well? Am I a Hetrophob now too?
Anya, I think you need to read my post again because I don't recall ever saying that Christians are "supposed to" do anything. I said that they DO. It's fine that you have your beliefs; not believing in God is your perogative. But don't impose your beliefs on other people especially not on me. You may have lost your faith in your religion but that doesnt mean other people have. I don't appreciate you referring to Christianity as a "con" just because you've had your own revelations (if you can all it that) about it. You speak of Christians as if they are misguided but in all honesty, I think you have just proved that you are the one that is sorely misguided and not to mention un-educated (and no, I am not assuming that). HP_Freak, the Bible is there as a reference and you are free to interpret its contents according to your own beliefs. I refuse to take everything in the Bible as "law" as it has been re-written, translated and re-translated (implying the fact that some information has been lost). I do believe that it is outdated and I have no doubt in my mind that if God were to send another one of his Messiah's that he would not hesitate to give the first gay person he encounters a hug and say "You are definitely one of God's gifted children". IF you are as "by the book" as you say you are, then you should certainly not be condeming or even judging other people as it is clearly stated that that is not your place to do so.
Amortentia, I respectfully disagree with you on the issue of the Bible, but I agree with your comparison. But Jesus would do the same to everyone, including me, and I know I am a sinner. To me, this doesn't say that homosexual acts are not a sin. It just proves that we're all human, and he loves us regardless of what we do. Do you see what I mean, even if you don't agree?
who care if dumbledore is gay, it makes no difference in the story, second off, it was rather nice to see her be able to enjoy a interview and be open. and harry potter and religion have nothing in common so to speak. i wish people would just take things at face value.. and ENJOY life, instead of trying to make out agendas for people.... she meant NO harm by writing these lovely stories. and everyone in my family has read them, from my god daughter to me to my grandmother. they are a fine piece of work.
HP_Freak, maybe God killed your wife to punish you for being a false Christian, did you consider that? Or maybe she killed herself to get away from you. You know, HP_freak, I suspect that you haven't even actually read the books, you just want to use Mugglenet as another forum to spread your Christian-based bigotry. I mean, like I said, the only time you post is when the subject is homosexuality. And for those of you pissed off that I said there is no God.... pbbbt. There is no God. It's a fact. If it's a fact that upsets you, then just ignore it. Oh, and a question for those of you who believe homosexuality is a sin... what are your feelings on women speaking in church, or teaching male students, or otherwise having authority over men? Is that wrong?
The bible hasn't been "lost" in translation, the original text in Hebrew and Greek is still available and always will be for the review of anyone who wants to. The Dead See Scrolls were amost a thousand years older then the oldest known copy and it was virtually identical to the next oldest copy availible and even modern translations. I do believe Jesus would give a Gay person a hug, then he would tell them "go and sin no more" just as he did the prositute that washed his feet. The mistakeis believeing that because Jesus loves everyone that there will be no judgement. In the end, there will be, and it will be fair and eternal. I am not condemn or judgeing anyone, what I condemn is Sin, even my own, which I have to ask forgiveness for every day because I will never be able to measure up. That is what makes Grace such a gift, we don't deserve salvation, but we freely get it anyway, all one has to do is believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to claim it. After that, you dont have to do anything, but there will be the final judgement. A true believer will begin to change thier ways out of desire to live for Christ.
i really don't even know who I agree with anymore. People seem to sending hate messages and "go kill yourself" threats left and right. Anyamarcos and everybody else who is biased and prejudiced against ANYONE, please just shush!! You're making it worse. Your last post just proves that once again, Anyamarcos.
HP_Freak, I seem to remember you saying, at one point, that you were in highschool. Shall I go back and find it, or would you like to just admit that you're lying your ass off about being a widowered father of two? And you say above that you don't judge JKR, but on a previous page on this very topic, you said she couldn't be a Christian, because she made DD gay. Go back and look, if you've forgotten.
Here, HP_Freak, here are your comments. "I would also call into serious question JKR's claims of being a Christian....because the two subject matters don't mix.....can we say SODOM and GAUMORAH???? I hope I get lots of comments of protest, Ill know then that I struck a nerve. Ok, next question, who hates me for being a Christian?"
I believe the phrase, " I would also call into serious question" is by definition stating I don't know. It isn't saying JKR is not a Christian because of her statements about supporting homosexuality. There is a big difference. One is judgeing, one is a question. Call it what you like, but I've been consistant from the start. Yes go back and try and find where I said I was in High School...you wont find it anywhere. I noticed you havn't answed the quesiont at the end? Do you hate me for being a Christian? It is alright if you do, its not my loss. Yes my wife did kill herself, and yes it could have been punishment for my sins. Does that frighten you, it does me, I'm hoping I've grown in my faith that I don't repeat my sins. Either way, she is in Heaven and in much better shape then I'm in. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of all wisdom, and frankly, It scares me. Do you know the story oof Sodom and Gaumorah? For those who don't, it was two biblical towns that had been over come with homosexuality and sin. The angles of the Lord wiped them off the face of the earth for it. You complain about judgement, but its not my judgement you should fear. (If anyone wants to read the story its in Genesis 19)
To Anya - I'm afraid you may be a little short-sighted when it comes to religion. Not everyone who believes in a religion is the same, and I think you'd be surprised at how non-judgmental many religious people can be (and how judgmental non-religious people can be). For many people, religion is about finding some peace and meaning to their life. The spirituality they gain from practicing a religion helps them cope with the many problems and mysteries of life. I do think it's unfortunate that something as helpful as spirituality often has to be found in something as baggage-ridden as religion, because, yes, some people lose focus of the spirituality and focus on the religion only, which is very empty without the spirituality. But religion isn't the culprit of fanatical thinking, no more than political parties are; people will always find an ideology to become fanatics about. By the way, I'm an atheist myself, but I understand that my own personal dis-belief has no more weight than anyone's else's belief and, more importantly, has nothing to do with anyone else but myself.
*blinks* Right... off tangent much, people? Anyway, I for one, am glad she's sorting the ugly business of the lawsuit, and working on her encyclopedia. Assuming that it's a proper big encyclopedia, then it's going to cost us all a pretty penny, so I wonder if Mr Vander Ark actually thinks he stands to make much profit... Oh well, I do hope its settled... Jo knows we'll be waiting for that book no matter how long it takes for her to compile it. And love on the Starbucks, lol.
And I'm not going to get into the thick of the misunderstandings up there, but Mintorateoishii, SPOT ON! Spot on mate, spot on. If everyone could mind their own business, since you know, your belief system is between you and whoever/whatever you believe in, we'd live a lot more peaceful.
At the anti-gay people - Homosexuality being wrong is not a fact, so you can't "know" that homosexuality is wrong, you can only believe it. If you want to love homosexuals while condemning what they do, go right ahead, but please understand that it's not deemed necessary in everyone's mind to have to separate homosexuals from homosexual acts in order to love them. People who accept homosexuality have just as much right to accept it as you have to condemn it. Just because your religion says something, doesn't make your opinion on homosexuality more valid than opinions based on something else. And religion itself is open to interpretation, so even in Christianity there is no definitive position. JKR can be Christian and accept homosexuality. And she could very well do what you do and condemn the act while loving the person, and still include a homosexual character in her book. I would venture to ask that if you love homosexuals, why would you be upset that one of her characters is homosexual?
Yet another great interview . I love to hear what Jo has to say on pretty much any toppic. So nice of her to agree to do this just meeting the guy at Starbucks lol. Ohhh I so hope she gets to writing that "novel about a stand-up comedian" some day. But for now she's already started working on the encyclopaedia YAY.
--; All right, HP_Freak, I don't have anything more to say to you, you are playing word games and avoiding the point I made. Not to mention you completely avoided me mentioning that we can't follow every single thing the bible says perfectly. There are contradictions. But this is a waste of time. I'm done with this discussion, because it never goes anywhere.
I know it's silly to be adding further fire to this debate, but I really can't help it. I just thought I'd say that I agree with basically everything you've said, AnyaMarcos. I respect that people are religious and believe in gods, but personally I think it's all fiction. Whichever holy book you choose to follow, I think it was written by some very "moral" people in past generations, and they simply used it to project these beliefs. Homophobia, sexism, etc ... even if one of these books are true, I'm sticking with my own morals and choosing not to believe in a god who supposedly thinks so many people are less-than-human, and thinks they should face eternal damnation.
AnyaMarcos shut up about religious matters, you dont know what your talking about, and the reason your bitter against it is probably because you used to be religious and and they said something you didnt like and you became an athiest or something all because the church hurt your feelings even though thats one of the main things the church is supposed to do: tell you what your doing wrong so you can fix it.
Mintorateoishii, I agree with what you said in your last post. I don't know, but I believe, and I accept that most people don't agree with me. I don't "deem it necessary" to separate the two; that's just how I think it is, IMO. I'm not really trying to convince anybody here that I'm right; I'm just trying to say that someone can think about the issue as I do and not be a bigot, as some here have (strongly) said - and that opinions based on religion aren't less valid than others, as people have also said. I don't claim to know what JKR thinks, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we agree (or that we don't, for that matter). I'm not upset that Dumbledore is homosexual, as I said before, but glad - I think it's a great message, that "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." --- Susan14, I'm sorry you feel that way, because I think any discussion can be productive when it's kept civil. :-)
This was a really great interview ... even though the books are done, there's a lot to talk to Jo about! I can't wait for the backstory in the encyclopedia ... it's exactly what we need! It's so sad how she says she realized she can't go back to "that world," though, because not only does that take away her hope of writing more Harry, but it takes away ours, too!
I'm back! (yes, I know I said I was shutting up, but this debate just amazes me). First of all, I would just like to thank member_of_SPEW for being so respectful in her comments. Anya, I don't understand how you can complain, in earlier comments, about how "there will never be peace while religion exists" and all the while you are telling people to commit suicide and hoping that "their mother will die of cancer." I myself don't think there will ever be peace when people make comments like that. You have every right not to believe in God, however, some people (like, um, me) might find your comments about religion offensive, just like some people who are gay might find comments from anti-gay people (HP freak)offensive. Have you ever thought about that?
Haha...you're so right fawkeshermione17. But I personally think that some people on here (*cough* Anya *cough*) are saying things more to make trouble and see others get angry more than anything else, because most people, if they truly believe what they say they believe in, are respectful of what others believe unless they're so narrow-minded that they think that they're always right.
member_of_SPEW, I'm talking about religious discussions. They NEVER go anywhere, because they sure don't stay civil for long, and no one is going to really agree.
Back to Top