I sincerely hope she doesn't get the nomination - she's the only candidate that I'd opt not to vote at all if it was a choice between her and a Republican. I distrust anyone who so baldly appeals to the lowest-common denominator, and her record of restricting liberties in order to make the government a babysitting operation is something I just can't support. Obama, great. Edwards, fine. Clinton . . . nope, just can't do it.

While I'm a fan of the books as well, and while I agree that the notion that Rowling got her young fans acquainted with a degree of moral ambiguity that they more than likely wouldn't have experienced otherwise (just look at the news today, and you'll see that ambiguity isn't merely stifled, it's actively distrusted). That being said, I disagree with the tone in general, that giving this additional information to a worldwide audience is somehow a problem.

Don't get me wrong, I'd much prefer a new book or a new series to a glut of notes, hints and factiods, but it seems to me all too common for readers to get upset when the authors they enjoy act in a way contrary to what they'd desire. Rowling MADE that universe - it's her creation. If she were to reveal that the sky over Hogwarts were green, but she'd simply failed to mention it during the series, then she'd be right. The moral ambiguity that pervades the whole Harry Potter series doesn't disappear just because she reveals what someone decided to do for a living 20 years after series' end. As a matter of fact, even if she WERE to say that Snape was a "good guy", then it'd still be debatable, as her definition of "good guy" might vary from that of any given reader. However, the definitons of "gay" and "auror" (for example) are not up for debate, and for her to reveal those facts (and since she wrote them, they ARE facts, in the context of this literary universe) doesn't change a single thing.

Contrary to what another poster wrote, her statements ARE absolute. If you don't want to agree with what she wrote, that's your choice, but you ARE wrong. Sorry, but the pronouncements of the universe's creator can't be argued with with any degree of authority whatsoever, especially when they regard the actual occurences in the lives of those characters that weren't revealed in the text one way or the other. If Rowling says that Dumbledore was an alien, she's right - by definition, since she was his creator and is therefore the ultimate authority in these things. Authors often graciously refer to readers as taking on the role of collaborators, but for a reader to seriously imply that their role on a universal scale is comparable to the work of the writer is just an act of hubris by those who can't deal with the degree of passivity required to actually enter someone else's world for any period of time. If you fail to believe that Dumbledore is gay, that's fine, but regardless of your reasons, to anyone other than yourself, you're merely the equivalent of the fans of Rock Hudson who refused to believe that he could've been gay just because they didn't want it to be the case, because that wasn't the image of him that they'd built up in their minds.

Perhaps it's true that LoTR could be read as a clear WW2 parable (and there are many ways that it can't, regarding the fact that the Allies weren't innocent over over-industrialization, one of the main characteristics of Sauron, et. al. while the elves, hobbits, humans and the like were), but historical context, metaphors, comparisons and the like are opinions, much like the Snape good/bad debate, and NOT like the sexuality of one of her characters. If we are to take seriously those who actually protest that a book's character isn't gay just because they never thought that that was the case, then we obviously must open ourselves up to twisted Greg Araki interpretational versions of every heterosexual in literary history where, despite anything that happened in the story or what the writer might've intended, every male is gay. And that would be awful. Because Greg Araki is terrible. So no. Dumbledore's gay, and I say 'go Rowling' if she wants to lay out the history and futures of the characters into whose lives she allowed us a window with the 7 books in the Harry Potter series.

Though I really wish there were more.

Given the fact that people are more inclined to post letters about things that they disagree with than they are things that they do hold with, I hope to come back to the letters here, tomorrow, and relish the irony. Yes, finding people disagreeing with the basis of Sunstein's claims (that hearing primarily those who agree with you increases the polarization of beliefs) as they read each other's letters and get more and more strident with their complaints. Oohh, look, it's happening already!