1. I don’t consider the Harry Potter series to mainly be a “children’s story”. I’d call it more a coming of age series.

Without doubt, the first couple of books are children’s stories, but by book four, we’re well beyond scary monsters and cardboard villains. Therefore although I find Reyhan’s analysis of Dumbledore’s mixed-up love for Harry to be accurate, I don’t find it inappropriate for a coming-of-age story. There is growth from Harry-the-child to Harry-the-man (the age of adulthood in the wizarding world is an arbitrary 17, rather than our more common arbitrary 18) over the course of the series; Dumbledore’s actions similarly become more how-shall-I-say-it something which can be looked at by an age-appropriate reader.

2. I believe that Mary Jo Neyer has made a good observation: one of Dumbledore’s flaws was that he at times spoiled Harry. Effectively, Dumbledore did not seek the good in the one he loved (which, as an adult and teacher, he was also duty-bound to do), but he tooke the easy way — easy to Dumbledore even more than to Harry! Nice insight, Mary Jo.

Darok, you may either return and explain/defend your comments in a kinder way, in a way that actually contributes to analysis of the series, or you may not comment again.

I know you haven’t responded yet. I just wanted to apologize in advance for implying that your message was for purposes of trolling. I’m sorry.

However, I think it a fair question to ask, if JKR is as bad as you claim in your post, why bother posting at all on a Harry Potter fan site?

If you think Rowling’s writing is hackney & you think her morality is “bolloxed,” as you say, then why bother reading Harry Potter fan sites? If it’s simply for fun, as you say, maybe you could find a more productive hobby.

Or are you simply posting a troll message?

So what if he’s gay?

Although JKR is nothing but a bunch of bollocks, a hack writer and quite frankly, DD is such a reprehensible character that it’s a shame she picked him to be her one gay character.

But her morality is all bolloxed up if you ask me.

It’s fun watching you all get so upset over these incredibly shallow books with no morality whatsoever – which have nothing to do with sexuality.

The reason I’ve never challenged the Lexicon is one, just because it’s commonly accepted to be the place that decides what’s canon or not, it really has no authority to do. Now, if Jo made it her official, licensed place of canon, that’d be different. And two, I’ve never really read the Lexicon all that much, except for a few essays.

There’s a big difference between knowing what Harry’s wand is made of or what Snape’s birthday is & then giving out information that actually changes how the books should be read after the books are written.

There’s been hints all through the books about Snape, which Jo wraps up in DH, & there’s been hints about Dumbledore all through the series, but she doesn’t wrap it up in the end. Even after the King’s Cross chapter he’s still somewhat of a mystery in the books.

So, I think why people are having discussions over what canon is now, is because until now we’ve never had anything that actually changed the text itself from outside of the text.

Anyway, Jo’s revelation has certainly been blown way out of proportion because it doesn’t appear that she ever had any plans of sharing it, at least anytime soon. In the reading she was caught in an unguarded moment by a very personal & emotional question from a fan & she responded in a very personal & emotional way. It’s the kind of person she is.

At first, I was taken aback with so many fans clamoring to redefine canon because of this one issue. Since then, I have come to realize that this reassessment of what is canon allows many of you to continue enjoying the series as much or almost as much as you did before, which is wonderful.

Jo has every right to publicly say what she will about her series, and we, as readers, have every right not to incorporate those statements into our own personal canon, if we so choose. That is what literary interpretation is all about, isn’t it? Interpretation is personal. Where I think the line must be drawn, though, is when readers criticize Jo for making comments on her series, as opposed to simply disagreeing with her opinions. From the most recent interview, it was obvious to me how very much Jo was hurting, and I hurt for her and with her. She has probably taken an enormous amount of flack over this issue from all sides: fans, press, and publishers. I would imagine she was particularly hurt by attacks on her character, implying that she must just be doing this for publicity and the money – attacks which, in my opinion, contradict the very heart of Jo’s nature.

Ginevra, Rowling’s woman, through and through

Its already been done and its called “doing a Lucas”.

Matthew