I’m assuming by now you’ve all heard that J. K. Rowling outed Dumbledore in Australia last week. Now obviously, I’m not going to be excited by this–but I’m not going to use this an excuse to rant about the morality of a fictional character. One of the strengths of the series was that every character was flawed, they all did heroic things (well, except You Know Who and some of his cohort), and they all acted foolishly and immorally. Dumbledore was no exception to this at all. So adding one more sin to his list really doesn’t affect what I think of him.
And that’s what bothers me the most about what Rowling did–it doesn’t really add to, or detract from, the character. There’s one attraction in his youth, apparently unrequited, which has really no affect whatsoever on the events in the series. So was this just Rowling needing to get her name in the headlines again? (not sure I buy that) Her trying to make some sort of political statement? (eh, maybe). I’m not sure, it seems so purposeless, senseless to do this.
Now, is Deckard a Replicant or not? That makes a difference. Is Hobbes really alive or a stuffed toy? That makes a difference. This? I just don’t see how it matters. No more than knowing what third-world country Fez is from.
Then John C. Wright weighs in on the issue, and helps me see another problem with her announcement (Fabio Paolo Barbieri’s comments are great, as well). Potter fans, take a second or and read ’em.
H/T: Thanks, bluewoad for catching the typo.
Cracked this open for the first time last night, shortly after my shift started. At 6:25, when I had to take care of some end-of-shift chores, I had 100 pages left.
