Sometimes my topics come to me very clearly, practically written in fact, but other times, they buzz around like irritating gnats, difficult to ignore but impossible to catch. I feel compelled to put something down, but the who what when where whys are all jumbled up. I can only start at the beginning and hope I end up somewhere worthwhile by the end.
So, Friday, I went to see The Jane Austen Book Club with a friend. It was a cute film based on a cute book. It has a little more going for it than one might imagine, but it's fluff, moderately nutritious fluff. It's a story about a book club formed in response to the crisis of one of the members, whose husband leaves her for another woman. The members work their way through the Austen oeuvre and through their lives and in the end, there's some happily-ever-after business and some satisfactory-for-now business, with couples coming together and what-not. In the film this is reflected with the obligatory montage of happy couples, which includes a shot of the token lesbian couple in bed. I was into the movie, I was enjoying myself, when suddenly, accompanying the truly benign sight of two attractive young women chastely cuddling, the woman next to me hisses, yes, literally hisses "disgusting." The woman next to her concurs, adding a "gross" for good measure.
I was stunned, apoplectic with stunned-ness, actually. My first instinct was to dump my bucket of popcorn on her, except that I didn't have any. At least, it's fun to imagine that I would have. Truth is, I didn't know what to do. I wanted to tell the little old lady off, but tell her what? "You are a nasty bigot lady!" Clearly she knows, and does not much mind. I know that plenty of people are nasty bigots in private but apparently my naivete knows no bounds, because I thought we were past the day when people thought it was okay to say stuff like that in public.
The next day, I went to see Spamalot with some friends. Spamalot, a musical based on the Monty Python oeuvre, is not a shining beacon of political correctness or high culture. It won my approval early in Act I by devoting an entire song to ridiculing Andrew Lloyd Weber. Later in the show (spoiler alert!) when the knight who turns out to be gay marries the charming prince he rescued from a tower, he offers the line "Just think, a thousand years from now, this will still be really controversial." I took that as my answer from the universe regarding the nasty biddy at the movies. That plus the fact that I can talk about this woman in public and call her a nasty biddy and she'll never know, ha ha! You've been DISSED in the blogosphere, bigot beeyatch!
Article comments
1 - Che
When I started reading this article I thought it was going to be a load of the same jackassery I've been seeing all over the net. Glad to see it wasn't.
I understand your concerns. The most vocal people about the "Dumbledore Issue" have been the fundie christians (who KNEW he was evil all along, being a wizard. Now its even WORSE), and the fundie gay activists (why wasn't he GAY in the books?!)
For me, Dumbledore's past love for Grindlewald just added another facet to the complexity of an interesting, lovable and deeply complicated person. But the fundie christians have never read the books anyway, and the fundie activists live in a bizarre narrow little world where everything and everyone is either gay or not-gay. But the people who have read and love the books are legion, and these are the people who are going to appreciate the whole picture.
People cheered when Rowling answered the question about Dumbledore's love-life, revealing that Dumbledore was gay. Was the entire group at Carnegie Hall gay? Were they all thinking, "Yay, another gay to add to our list!" No, they were Harry Potter fans, and I think they cheered because their understanding of a beloved character had just expanded a bit.
So take heart. There are PLENTY of us out here who love Dumbledore, the whole Dumbledore, and aren't going to forget his kindness, his bravery, and his wisdom.
2 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Kati,
If the "re-reading" of the Harry Potter series occurs as seriously as you suspect it might, then it will prove to Joanne Rowling that some things remain better left unsaid. The wisdom that she puts in Dumbledore's mouth is profound. If society demeans it all by making a stink over something that never even appeared in the novels, it will be shame. But, this is is a generation of dogs, reversals whose upbringing is not in them, so it will not be surprising if this "re-reading" of Harry Potter you predict occurs.
This brings up one point that I occasionally bring up with my kids, though. That is the general orientation of the books, an orientation which is not too visible, but is clear to anyone with open eyes. Rowling's agenda in her books is diversity and multi-culturalism and plugging its virtues. She uses elves, centaurs and wizards, and the relationships between them to make her points, but she makes the points nevertheless. Perhaps, her comments about Dumbeldore were made in the same spirit.
3 - daryl d
Nice article. I'm surprised Perez Hilton hasn't shown pictures of Dumbledore with white stuff coming out of his mouth? Or has he?
4 - Victor Plenty
Who's Perez Hilton? And why should I give a damn what he says about Dumbledore?
Ah, never mind. Don't bother answering that. There isn't any answer that could persuade me to care what such a person might say, even if he's President Bush's astrologer or whatever.
5 - Kati
He's a faux celebutard who, I think, fancies himself the new Louella Parsons. He likes having pictures taken of himself with real celebutards, in incriminating circumstances if possible.
At least, that's my impression.