What Does Harry Potter Mean Now? [49:56-54:57]

Part 2. Can we still like Potter? Re-interpretations of Potter often end with a disclaimer reassuring their audience that if you're a Potter fan, and Potter still means something to you, that's okay. You're not a bad person just because you like Joanne's books. And while I'm sure they're sincere about that, it does ring a bit hollow when it comes right after a detailed argument about the bigoted worldview underpinning the entire story. If it is okay to like Potter, why is it okay? I'm just like so into Harry Potter, but also, uh, can I say? Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! Terp! And it is, I still maintain though that there is so much in there that, that you know, resonated with a lot of us misfits, a lot of us kids that wanted magic and really believed in it. And I will never let that part go, but Terp. I want to offer a counter argument to the reinterpretation, but I don't want to do a non-committal centristine. There's good and bad points on both sides, type deal. I don't disagree with the reinterpretation, at least not in the points I've mentioned. Nevertheless, the reinterpretation heavily relies on deciphering Joanne's politics and beliefs. I want to explore what else Potter means that doesn't involve her. In other words, I want to try and kill the author. In death of the author, but doesn't actually say the author should be ignored entirely. What he's criticising is the idea of the author, capital A, as a singular voice with a singular meaning. A text doesn't exist independently of the language, media and culture which surrounds it. So it's limiting to interpret a text as having just one meaning, which the author intended. To give an author to a text is to impose upon that text a stop clause, to furnish it with the final signification, to close the writing. Likewise, I think it's limiting to only interpret Potter through the lens of Joanne. For one thing, it can lead to short-sighted conclusions. In his essay, Harry Potter and the Cauldron of Media Elitracy, Blogger Rory argues that legitimate criticism of Potter is often undermined by a desire to discredit Joanne. One example he cites are the accusations that Potter's goblins are anti-Semitic. This is a loaded topic, so I'm going to tread carefully here. Rory, speaking as a Jewish man himself, argues that while the movie's depiction of goblins strongly resemble anti-Semitic caricatures, that's less true of the goblins' descriptions in the books. While it is true that putting goblins in charge of a bank evokes medieval depictions of Jewish bankers and there are complications around the depiction of grip hook, Rory argues the legitimate criticism here is that Joanne is thoughtlessly regurgitating fantasy tropes which are rooted in anti-Semitism. By itself, this doesn't prove she's an outright anti-Semite, and yet that's what she's often accused of. I find this far more offensive than I find Rowland's actual text because it cynically uses accusations of anti-Semitism to fabricate a narrative. It's as if it's not enough for Rowland to be profoundly transphobic, she needs to be more of a bigger or else it doesn't come. It undermines the more credible thing as you can accuse Harry Potter and Rowling of when you're so conspicuously looking to interpret things in bad faith that you start misreading the book's literal text. It's not my place to comment on how anti-Semitic the goblins are, but Rory's argument does remind me of the way people criticize Joanne's handling of Dumbledore's homosexuality, which I absolutely can comment on. Infamously, Joanne revealed Dumbledore was gay after the final book was already published, which many interpreted as a publicity stunt to keep the book's relevant after the series was complete. Really? You think the author of Harry Potter thought her books weren't getting enough publicity? I think it was something that was just thrown out for the American press to get them stirred up a bit. No, it didn't. Joanne only revealed this detail to the public in a Q&A, after being specifically asked about Dumbledore's love life. And she told a story, which others have corroborated, about script drafts of Half Blood Prince being altered, because Joanne shared this detail with screenwriter Steve Clovis. So I think it's unlikely she made it up just to generate press. If she'd never been asked about it, maybe we'd never have found out at all. My issue with Dumbledore is that after Joanne became the most successful children's author of all time, she had the opportunity to make his sexuality visible in the text.