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
yeah, i think Anyamarcos is just doing it to get everybody all riled up. I'm surprised that Mugglenet's supervisors aren't taking care of this. According to the site rules, we're not supposed to make comments that degrade religion or other personal issues. If we do make comments that are too biased or degrading, we're supposed to have our membership taken away. Just a little warning, Anya.
Member of Spew, I whole-heartedly agree with what you are saying and that was pretty much the point I was trying to make. I was just basically saying, gay or not, someone like Jesus would DEFINITELY not discriminate you based on your sexual orientation because as a person, everyone: age, gender, race, whatever....are sinners and so we basically all are on the same page here.
This is for Susan14, since she thinks I'm ignoring her questions. I thought I addressed your posts, but you call it word games. I agree that no one can follow every thing in the Bible, but, that is not a validation to do something intentionally wrong or whatever we desire to do that is "right for me". If we could follow everything in the bible, there would be no need for salvation...that is the whole point of Christianity. You judge me for judging others while saying we shouldn't judge others....You said there are contradictions...The problem is everything I've said is in the Bible, its not my judgemet that matters, its God's. Some call it hiding behind the Bible, so be it, I'm ok with letting God take the credit. You might say thats playing word games, no its repeating THE Word. The problem is, in this day and age, there are allot of Christians who are being mislead by false doctrine, This is plainly predicted to happen in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 "3. For a time is coming when people will no longer listen to sound and wholesome teaching. They will follow their own desires and will look for teachers who will tell them whatever their itching ears want to hear. 4. They will reject the truth and chase after myths." (NLT2) I'm asking contradictions in what...My statements, the Bible, others statements? I didn't follow that part.
HP_Freak, I don't hate you for being a Christian. You're NOT a Christian. You're a poser. You're someone who claims to be a Christian simply so he can think he's better than everyone else. You are NOT a Christian. In fact I'd say that nobody who has posted on this thread is a Christian. Not a real one, anyway. I hate you because you're a scumbag, and because you try to manipulate people, and then deny it. You are the reason your wife is dead. Never forget that. I hate people who are anti-gay, because they hate (yes, it is hate) people that have not done them any harm at all. My hate of anti-gay people is justified, whereas their hatred of gay people is not. THEY are doing harm to other people, the gay people are not. That why I hate them. It's really not that difficult a concept.
Anya if you don't even believe in God how can you determine who's a "real" Christain and who's not? Just saying. I think you just want to start an argument.
Good point, HBP_Hagrid, I agree. And Anya - hating people because they hate other people...wow, what a wonderful world we live in.
Anyamacros thinks I hate Gay people so I guess that is concrete evidence that I do right...(yes that is sarcasm) Some people are capable of understanding that thinking something is wrong is not the same as hating the person who does it. Hate is never justified, and he is mistaken to think that because Im afraid of the consequences of Sin that somehow his statements about my wife will make me angry. He has to justify his hatred of me by convincing himself that I'm not a Christian so he doens't have to feel guilty about doing the same thing he is hating others for. For those who think I'm just using word games then think about Jesus, because many here have said Jesus would love gays, and they are right..he would, he loves everyone, but Jesus also hates sin. I fact conveniently forgotten so they can justify the sin. They say he wouldn't judge them, and he wont, not yet anyway, but at the time of the second coming the judgment will come and I don't want to be here for it. To return to my original point in this discussion, I think making the practice of homosexuality an everyday acceptable behavior is leading many people down the wrong path. That is the whole point of spreading the word that it is wrong...not to spread hate for homosexuals. People can make their choice as to their own actions and that is between them and God, but I'm not going to sit her and condone the action. Oh and Anyamacros, I sill don't hate you in return.
hasn't anyone thought about the fact that as christians, we don't judge others? it's each and every own person's decision about whether they are a "true" Christian or not. Also, I thought that Anya said he was trying to promote peace, but he (along with many others, whose arguments have become so convoluted that I now have difficulty even following them) is only perpetuating the cycle of hatred.
AnyaMacros wrote "I hate people who are anti-gay, because they hate (yes, it is hate) people that have not done them any harm at all. " No AnyaMacros, I care enough to not want to see people knowingly go down the wrong path....one that in my opinion has very serious consequences.
HP_Freak, do you believe the crap that comes out of your mouth? Go back a few pages and read the first post you made here. Then try and tell us that you only meant well. You said yourself that you wanted to upset people. You WANTED to be persecuted, because it's the only way you can feel like a real Christian. You bait people, and instigate them to respond to you emotionally, and then deny having done that. Again, go back and read your first post on this news item. Oh, and don't worry, you won't be around for Judgement Day. Because it's a myth, just like your phony God. Ask yourself this, HP_Freak... why don't you speak out against sins besides homosexuality? It's because you know that you might be tempted to do other sins. You only speak out against homosexuality because you KNOW that you will never be tempted to do it! And I noticed that nobody replied to my question asking about a woman's right to teach men, or have authority over men. I can show you scripture that forbids a woman to teach men. Why don't you gay-haters follow those verses?
Your calling God phony but trying to stir up an argument about Women not teaching Men bye using scripture that by your definition is "phony". My comment about hoping to get lots of comments was more of a comment to say I knew what was coming and I was not disappointed....because as long as your engaging me here then I get to keep telling you the Good News....I can also show you scripture in the bible where it talks about women not having authority of men in the church...but I can also show you other scriptures where God used women to do many good things, including being judge over Israel. (Judges was a time when Israel had no kings) There maybe different rolls in some situations, but they are equally important and equally difficult. Your implication is that Woman are less the Men, and that's not correct anywhere in the bible...your premise is flawed to start with...
OK, Freak, when you posted here that first time, you would agree, I'm sure, that there is nobody on this website who doesn't know what it says about homosexuality in the Bible, correct? So you can't honestly claim that it was your goal to warn someone about eternal damnation. Everybody already knows what the Bible says. You posted here, not for anyone else's benefit, but only for your own. You want to be able to say you "did your part", but you don't really care who goes to Hell and who doesn't. As long as you make it LOOK like you cared. That is why you are a false Christian. You preach only for yourself, not for others.
"as long as your engaging me here then I get to keep telling you the Good News" TRANSLATION: HP_Freak gets to keep telling you you're going to Hell, but HE is going to Heaven, because he is just so much more holy than you. :)
Sigh....Have a nice BBQ....Go ahead and start without me....
See, Freak? Your response to anyone who disagrees with you is "you're going to Hell."
Brilliant! She's so morally open-minded that it's rather inspiring to see through her that my own way of thinking is not going in the wrong direction... And we have to admit, those of us in our "late teens-early 20s" have: being singled out like that is gratifying. We did grow up with Harry after all...
The Bible is RIFE with contradictions. Any Christian knows that. If you're not seeing any, you're not reading very closely. Tell me, did you do any work last Sabbath? And what is the Sabbath for you, Saturday or Sunday? Jesus contradicted the Old Testament many times in the New Testament. These comments are what really got to me: "It is not my wish that anyone go to hell but rather scares me that so many will." "I care enough to not want to see people knowingly go down the wrong path....one that in my opinion has very serious consequences" Charming. At least I'm not using the Bible to post frightened/frightening comments, judging you worthy of burning in eternal Hell fire. You are implying that your opinion is the word of God, when really it is just how you view the Bible, and your own personal views. So you can stop scaring people with 2 billion years of Hell fire. I don't think Jesus would promote that, or appreciate it. The option of judging someone fit for endangered damnation is NOT given to man, including you. You can't offer salvation, nor apply condemnation on anyone. That right lies with God and Christ. Quit attempting to scare people based on your opinion and interpretation of the Old Testament. I prefer Jesus' word over yours when it comes to the 'salvation/condemnation' issue.
HP_Freak, I just have to ask this. Hypothetically, imagine that you are apart of a country where Christianity is viewed as wrong (as in Muslim countries). The practice of Christianity is forbidden. Your society's religion tell you it's wrong, but you are a Christian. Would you still practice your worship openly, practice it in your closet, or cease altogether, out of fear of being damned? What do you do?
Just like muggles they cannot move beyond their own fears.
Wow. I love how Anya feels that he/she must attacks others' religions and beliefs. You are disprespectful and a coward because you only answer comments of people you feel you can prove wrong, but hardly anyone agrees with the how you're bashing them anyway. I notice that instead of considering that maybe some of the things you say might just be rude you just keep defending yourslef--a sign of somebody who is not strong enough to take a more objective view of themself and think about what others are saying as well. Sorry, but this whole thing is just really annoying me. Can't you just respect everyone's beliefs even if you don't agree with them and respond to what they say in a respectful, thoughtful matter and see if anyone will take you more seriously.
yeah, just like Susan14 said, you can't take everything in the Bible seriously... even those who call themselves true Christians don't do that. There are plenty of old-fashioned ideas that men had 2000 years ago that they were better than women. since then, our world has grown to understand (well, at least MOST people have) that we should be treated equally. Also, think about how Jesus treats women -- for example, he treats the woman at the well, who is a Samaritan, not in the normal way of a Jewish man's manner towards a Samaritan woman (normally, they would not even speak!!), but he engages her in a conversation which ultimately changes her life for the better. Yes, it IS true that the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has bits about women being subservient to their husbands, but: "...in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." (I Corinthians 11:11-12) Those who are wise will view the information in the Bible in a wise manner, realizing that humanity's views of many of the issues in the Bible have changed dramatically over the centuries: on slavery, women, etc. Remember that it was humans who wrote the Bible. Even so, that does not mean that other ideas in the Bible are made less important. It is merely up to us to choose what we believe in, as most of us are able to in today's world.
HBP, I answer comments from people who I think really want a reply. If they're just bitchingn at me (like you are here) then I don't reply, because I know my reply won't mean anything to them. And I never denied being rude, I am rude, I'm a total girl. But at least I don't try to pretend that I'm not. AND I don't try and justify my hatred with the Bible. My hatred is based on common sense. People who hate a group of people who have done them no harm are BAD PEOPLE. Seventhsoul, if not everything in the Bible should be taken seriously, why is homosexuality being sinful one of the things that IS? What I mean is, why are these female Christians insistent on enforcing the belief about homosexuality, but claim that the scripture dictating that men be superior over woman is "outdated?" It's hypocritical.
Anya: since when is being a girl equivalent to being rude? I happen to be a girl, as well, but I don't think that my comments are very rude. And the point that I'm trying to make is that I think that your comments are offensive and disrespectful and I don't see why you have to go out of your way to insult people because of their religious beliefs.
Fantastic interview! I'm a little miffed that the interviewer's a "muggle", but she did a darn good job of interviewing the hardest subject in the world. Jo is just too amazing for words. Loved everything she said in this interview.
I don't think you're understanding my point, Anya. I gave an example of a place in the Bible where man and woman are EQUAL. Yes, there are also bits where the traditional view of women is predominant, but many of those are in the Old Testament, which actually has nearly as much to do with Christianity as it does with Judaism or even (distantly) Islam. The roots of these three religions are one and the same, you see. I am no expert on the other said two religions, but the world in which Jesus lived was a Jewish one, and their traditional beliefs were that women should be subservient to men. Does that mean that people of the Jewish faith today still hold fast to that? Of course not. In fact, I have several Jewish friends who are quite independent women. The same goes for women of the Christian faith. As for those female Christians who you claim are "enforcing the belief about homosexuality," once again, I'm not talking about them. Like i said, I don't have any problem with homosexuality, I think we should treat everyone equally, because that is what we are. If "others" have difficulties accepting homosexuality and turn to the Bible to try to back themselves up, ask THEM. just because I'm a Christian doesn't mean I associate myself with those "Christians" who are biased. Also, the fact that I don't have a problem with homosexuality would normally mean that I wouldn't even be writing in the comments section -- there'd be no need -- except that I feel that the arguments going on in this section are highly controversial in themselves, besides the point of the topics -- for example, Anya, do you call "peace" ridiculing other's religious beliefs and refusing to see other people's point of view? Well, this comment went on way longer than I expected it to, but here you go.
Well said, seventhsoul! (or should I say, 'ear, 'ear?) Anyways, I'd just like a response, Anya, because I've asked this several times already - you complain about religion preventing peace, but you say things which will never bring about any sort of peace (such as "I hope your mom dies of cancer", "I hate them because they hate", "Go kill yourself and make your parents happy"). You have every right not to believe in God, just like we have every right to believe in God.
I agree with you, as well, seventhsoul. Plus, the human race changes with time. In Biblical times women were considered subservient to men, but times change. During Jesus's time everybody wore long robes and sandals all the time, but that's not what we're wearing today. As humans learn more about the world we live in (i.e. discover new places, behaviors, trends) we're bound to change. And Christians are supposed to follow Jesus's TEACHINGS, not the behaviors of people in general during Jesus's time.
HBP, I didn't say I was total girl, I SAID I was a total B*I*T*C*H, and the bloody profanity bot on this site changed it to "girl." If you type the B-word, it edits it and changes it to "girl." Watch: girl girl girl. And neither you or seventhsoul get it... I'm saying that even though the Bible says that women are inferior to men (and it is in the NT, look at Paul's writings), Christian women today, for the most part, don't believe it. And they don't believe it because, as you say "Times have changed." So my question is, when are the times going to change for homosexuals? That is, when is this unfounded, illogical, scripture-based condemnation of homosexuality going to be considered "outdated?" Five years from now? Ten? Fifty? As for my comment... pbbbt. I take full responsibility for my words. Would you speak out against Hitler? Against terrorists? Of course you would. That's why I speak out against "Christians."
Well, I apologize for the girl comment, then, Anya, but I wouldn't know that they change profanity to other words because I don't write them in MuggleNet comments. But you're right: the times have not comepletly changed for homosexuals. I personally don't have a problem with them at all, but some Christians (and people of any religion) do. But that's not to say that in a few years that won't change. Do you know how long women fought to gain rights equal to men's? And many are still fighting. What I'm saying, is that with any group of people branded as "different" there is going to be opposition. And some people will, like you said, use the Bible to justify their beliefs against these people, but that doesn't mean that all people are against them. Not every Christian is against homosexuals and not every Christian opposing homosexuas blames their opposition on the Bible. So don't attack a whole group of people based on what some of them think. You're doing to Christians just what you're saying they do to homosexuals: bashing all of them for what some of them believe. Someday homosexuals will be more accepted and then people will be opposing another "different" group of people that may become more distinguished in the future. The world always has to take some time getting used to "different" people and ideas because people fear what they don't know or understand.
"I care enough to not want to see people knowingly go down the wrong path....one that in my opinion has very serious consequences." I think sometimes caring can be disrespectful. I'm sure you do care, but it's not your place to tell someone that they're going down the wrong path. You have to respect the choices other people make, whether you think them wrong or not, otherwise it sounds less like you're caring, and more like you're being insincere and holier-than-thou. Having someone care for them doesn't mean much when that person doesn't even respect their ability to make their own choices. If you had a friend who didn't eat healthily, would you keep telling them they were eating poorly? Maybe you are worried about them, but constantly telling them they're doing something wrong is insulting, annoying and not even effective. So, in that situation the best thing to do is maybe invite them over for supper and serve something healthy or something like that. In your case, the best thing you could do is invite someone to church with you or some other religious activity, but doing anything more than inviting, especially telling them they're wrong, would be crossing the line.
HBP, if someone really does emulate Jesus and focus on his teachings, I have no problem with them. It's the garden-variety "Christian" that I have problems with, the ones who choose to ignore most of what Jesus taught in favor of a more conservative system. HP_Freak is one of those. He is not a true Christian, he is a man who chooses to call himself a Christian only for political reasons. See, you know as well as I do that there isn't a single gay person in the USA who DOESN"T know what the Bible says. They get it thrown in their faces all the time. So when people like HP_freak start soapboxing, you know it's not for the homosexuals' sake. It's just to make him feel better about himself. Like, he's BETTER than homosexuals, even though in reality he, too, is sinning his butt off. Pride and arrogance are in direct violation of Christ's teaching, but HP_Freak embraces them.
i dont even mnd all this gay shiit its just that isnt ot more for the eradrers tto choose if hes gay cuz it being portrayed to them? i eman otherwise wut u think of him cen like ruin it for u cuz then u see a whole different person... i dunno othat s hwo i feel
susan14 ur comment pissed me off rite there about hwo christianity is viewed as wrong in muslim countries... WTF????? my step sisters dad is muslim so i think i noe and hes form tehhe middle east iand i have been there and i noe all about mulims so tahts wrong aokaii? cuz they dont think that! they have respect for there beliefs but they stick with there own religion but they view others.. they dont belive any is wrong
sirius_lee, come back when the drugs wear off. Jesus Christ. Retard.
wut happened to u and ur so called new religious side anyamarcos? hmm? i thot u gave up all thsi shhh huh? stupid hoe! how duz knowing more than u (which isnt too hard) make me a retard on drugs u fudge faggot
Yeah, it passed over. My "religious" side. Mostly because of people like you... phillip. Did you really think you would fool me?
phillip? are u bullshitting or did he really do some shiit to u?
Yeah, he did. Go to my livejournal and you can see his old posts, where he said he supports Al Queda (or however they're spelling it this week.) He was also fond of calling me that slur for gay, like you did. And frankly you just sound like him. http://anyamarcos.livejou rnal.com/2692.html
it says the webpage cant be displayed.. ill check it on my laptop later... so howd he think he could fool u? and is he the reason u became religios or the reason ur not religious?
Nah, I thought you were him, but I guess you aren't. You're a different asshole with no life. :-) So why did your accounts get banned? Mine has never been banned. :-)
it didnt i forgot my password i thot it did but ive been re-assured... u noe y uve nvr been banned? cuz nobody cares wut u think so they juss ignore it/humour u and there like aww let her have fun! dont compare my life with ur itll only make u feel even more emo and we dont want that! lol no im not him lol
I'm not emo. And why do you type like that? Are you retarded? I mean officially retarded? Is it because your mom did drugs and drank while she was pregnant with you?
Wow, anymacros, I see your also into "White Pride".....sounds like there is another "class" of people out there you hate. Anyway, been gone for a few days...I totally stand behind what I said as an accurate portrait of the bible and Jesus....but I"m not going to sit here and argue any further.....When you find a copy of the bible that says in the beginning God created Adam and Ed, then I might be more willing to listen to your arguments....I'm off to better things now....have fun Good Luck
AnyaMarcos- you are really making me very angry! ok fine your entitled to your beliefs no questions asked. But you would think that you could show your opinions in a civalised manner?? I am not christian yet i know that the bible does not show inequality between men and women as the many quotes above show. As for Judiasim and Islam? Judiasim was the first religion ever followed by Christianity which came from it known as the correction followed by Islam which comes from both also too known as the correction of both religions. All three are very much similar- yet it is Society! which abuses power. Society! majorily not run by religion who have created this inequality between men and women. Not that it's too such a great extent now. Not a great extent in First World Countries! where all of us here live. The reason why we hear all this negativity from countries like Iran and Afgan is because they are not fully developed! do you honestly think countries like the US, Britian and Aust. were always as civilised? I was born and grew up in Sydney, Australia and i assure you myself being muslim can tell you that Islam in Australia is nothing like what you hear overcease. The simple matter being that we grew and live in a developed country. And you talk about some people not being a true christian?? Who are you to judge someone about something they might consider the centre of their life? I'm muslim and grew up as a complete Australian and i assure you i do not where a 'scarf' for i know who i am and don't need no symbol to tell me so! So am i not really a believer?? NO! i am! for the simple matter which you fail to understand and which Hp_freak does understand. Faith!!! a major core of all Religions!
I was referring to extremists with power in those countries, sirius_lee_G . I wasn't saying every single Muslim was that way, which I don't believe for a second, as I think the VAST majority don't wish to live a life of extremism. My only point that I was really trying to make was that we shouldn't have to hide parts of ourselves (such as homosexuality and religion) that are truly apart of us.
Back to Top