In a rare public appearance William Shakespeare told curious questioners that Hamlet was gay for the entire play. Actually, for his entire life. He thought that it would have been obvious to anyone observing Hamlet's rejection of Ophelia and his oedipal fixation on his mother, Gertrude.duh...
I have always found that, just as in human relationships, literary relationships with the characters have a lot of information missing. It's up to the reader to interpret and interpolate what is being read. It is not up to the author to give out every piece of information right then and there. Many authors have explained their writings in forums, discussions, interviews, etc after the fact. They may do it for clarification that they fell is necessary or that they need to clear up something that they have found readers may have a misunderstanding.
What' the big deal with J.K. Rowling answering a reader in a presentation at Carnegie Hall that Albus Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay?
The Chicago Sun-Times, on their main editorial page decided that it was worthy of an editorial comment. They accuse Rowling of using this revelation as literary misconduct. DON'T CHANGE THE STORY AFTER THE FINAL CHAPTER screams the editorial banner.So, the beloved Dumbledore happens to be gay. And now that the story has ended, and being gay or not had no impact on his character or upon the dramatic arc of the Potter saga, what's the point of revealing his orientation now? Rowling should curtail her agenda writing and stick to fiction.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Sun-Times Editorial Board: ALL writers have an agenda when they write! Read your own paper, if you doubt that there is no agenda to anyone who writes for you.
again, duh...
They use the argument thatShe hijacked parents' ability to set their own timelines for talking about tolerance and sexual orientation by grafting the contentious issue onto the wildly popular phenomenon that is Harry Potter.
third, duh...
This is exactly how parents deal with these types of issues. NOT when they've placed it on the timeline that they decided when the child was born. "Oh, at age two I'm going to tell my son how to wipe his ass. At age four I'm going to tell her about wearing colors that compliment each other. At age five I'm going to explain to him why killing is wrong. At age 17 I'm going to explain sex to him."
It doesn't work that way. As soon as a child is able to string a bunch of words together, s/he begins to question everything going on in her/his life, in the world, on the television, etc.
No parent ever decides when the right time is to bring up a discussion about something. The child decides. When a three year old asks, "Where do babies come from?" it's the right time to answer the question as truthfully as a three year old can understand it. Telling them, "The stork brings them." may account for unwanted adolescent pregnancies because they were initially given inaccurate information. At the least, it's teaching a child that it's all right to lie.
So Ms. Rowling answered a question at an open forum that, I assume, people paid to be and is now being accused of having an agenda? Now, the kids who have read the book are going to ask questions of their parents and the adult will have to answer the question. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's the right time now since the child asked? There are bigger questions that parents need to ask themselves. How? With great specificity? In general terms? With the truth? With a lie? Again, the answer(s) they give has to be in terms that are age and circumstance appropriate. That's the only thing the parent has control over. They know their own children.
here's a fourth duh: Parents need to understand that if they don't give their kids an answer, the kids will find an answer on their own. How accurate do they think that answer is going to be? They'll ask friends, who may be equally ignorant, or go on the internet, where there is too much information that has to be filtered to determine fact from nonsense, or find someone who has things other than the child's welfare in mind.
I propose that the emphasis here is not on the child's readiness to know about something. I propose that it's really the parents' personal discomfort in dealing with issues with which they themselves have a problem.
Here is a perfect example of what I'm speaking.
i love Dan Abrams' little smirk when he thinks someone is being a total idiot.
24 October 2007
Shakespeare Outs Hamlet...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment