Post-Wonderland Interview: Both sides of the shipping debates are winners

An open letter to the Harry Potter fandom:

The full Wonderland interview conducted by actress Emma Watson with J.K. Rowling has been published and its contents can be read on various websites including Hypable.  This was published a week after a teaser article in The Sunday Times had the eye grabbing headline of:

JK admits Harry should have wed Hermione

This set off a firestorm in the Harry Potter fandom as more and more news outlets worldwide reprinted the conclusions of that Sunday Times article.

Did J.K. Rowling actually use the term "regret" anywhere in that interview? No, she did not.

Is it a fair conclusion that her comments in that interview indicate that she now regrets pairing her characters Ron and Hermione together? Yes, it is.

During the interview, Emma asked Jo Rowling if she had a new perspective on Hermione. It was an open-ended question, one where Rowling could have gone in a myriad of directions, and she chose to bring up the romantic pairing of Hermione with Ron. She said their relationship was written as "wish fulfillment," she was "clinging to the plot as I first imagined it" and the choice was made for "very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility."

Ouch.

That implies that the Ron/Hermione relationship is not credible.

Rowling went on further to say that there was too much "fundamental incompatibility" and that "in some ways Harry and Hermione are a better fit".

Those phrases are what I think led to Claudia Croft's conclusions in the Sunday Times article that Jo Rowling admitted she should have paired Hermione with Harry.

Rowling and Watson had seemed a bit nervous once the discussion dealt with incompatibility of Hermione and Ron. 

Jo then said,

"I know, I'm sorry, I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I'm absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people's hearts by saying this? I hope not."

and

"I can't believe we are saying all of this – this is Potter heresy!"

Jo and Emma went on to discuss the tent scene in Deathly Hallows:

JKR: ...I'll tell you something very strange. When I wrote Hallows, I felt this quite strongly when I had Hermione and Harry together in the tent! I hadn't told [Steve] Kloves that and when he wrote the script he felt exactly the same thing at exactly the same point.Emma: That is just so interesting because when I was doing the scene I said to David [Heyman]: "This isn't in the book, she didn't write this". I'm not sure I am comfortable insinuating something however subtle it is!JKR: Yes, but David and Steve – they felt what I felt when writing it.
Emma: That is so strange.
JKR: And actually I liked that scene in the film, because it was articulating something I hadn't said but I had felt. I really liked it and I thought that it was right. I think you do feel the ghost of what could have been in that scene.

At the end of Watson's interview, Rowling attempted backtracking by saying that perhaps Ron and Hermione would "be alright with a bit of counseling."

Wow. Now that's a ringing endorsement.

They also discussed Ron's self esteem issues and Hermione's "weakness for a funny man."

This allows a shadow of a fig leaf for the Ron/Hermione shippers to cover themselves and feel confident after having the author and the actress who portrayed Hermione in the films discuss the romantic pairing in unflattering terms. Jo did not come out and say "I should have written things differently" nor did she say "I am thinking of re-writing the last book with an alternate ending." Therefore, we can assume she was just being honest in an interview, but does not currently plan on changing anything.

The websites for Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron were quick to provide their own interpretation of the full interview in an attempt to reassure nervous Ron/Hermione shippers that there was nothing to worry about. 

Mugglenet gave the headline "The TRUTH behind the J.K. Rowling 'Wonderland' interview."

With this as their end analysis:

"WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? Well, in our view, all J.K. Rowling has admitted was to feeling that the scene in the tent was a shared vulnerable moment between two characters that revealed an intriguing degree of compatibility between each of them, emotionally. In saying that Ron needed to get over his self-doubt, Rowling is mentioning a key component that readers would agree could certainly cause some trouble in an adult relationship. However, by the article's end, Rowling and Watson have both found a value in Ron that Harry doesn't possess: Ron's humor and his ability to level Hermione's character. Thus, for all of this talk, the result is that the characters end up safely nestled where they were before, inside the canon of the Potter books."

Similarly The Leaky Cauldron's article was titled: "Full 'Wonderland' Interview Reveals Ron/Hermione Shippers Can Relax."

"The full text of the Wonderland issue that caused a Ron/Hermione vs. Harry/Hermione shipping riot this week is now out, and rumors of the death of the canon pairing have been greatly exaggerated. J.K. Rowling repeats previously made comments that there are certain characteristics between Harry and Hermione that may have them better suited, but does not indicate a wish to pair them off or any regret over how she wrote the books. Emma Watson and J.K. Rowling simply discuss the hypothetical post-Hogwarts world and what Ron and Hermione's relationship might have looked like."Rowling said that regardless of their issues, Ron and Hermione "would probably be fine."

 and 

An excerpt of the interview published in The Sunday Times on Feb. 1 caused a controversy when Rowling said she "wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment.""For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron," Rowling said.Many fans took this to mean that Rowling had changed her mind and would have preferred Harry and Hermione as a pairing. It resulted in shipping wars intense enough to give some of us flashbacks to 2005."

I have a little quibble with that analysis, and will cite in part a subsequent interview Melissa Anelli had with Jo Rowling that was published in her book Harry, a History. 

"I tried very hard to soften it, I suppose," Jo said. "Just because someone had a view on Harry/Hermione didn't mean they weren't genuine, or that they were necessarily misguided...Steve Kloves...after he read book seven he said to me, 'You know, I thought something was going to happen between Harry and Hermione, and I didn't know whether I wanted it to or not.'...There are two moments when [Harry and Hermione] touch, which are charged moments. One, when she touches his hair as he sits on the hilltop after reading about Dumbledore and Grindlewald, and [two] the moment when they walk out of the graveyard with their arms around each other...

"Now, the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared something very intense with Harry.

"So, I think it could have gone that way."(snipped for length)

The difference is that Jo Rowling pointed out two different scenes to Melissa that she felt were charged H/Hr moments and neither were the tent scene that she discussed with Emma Watson. Jo Rowling has now admitted three separate charged moments in book 7 where Harry and Hermione were pulled to one another. That means that the Wonderland interview wasn't just repeating previous comments, but instead it represents an extension and revision to her previous remarks on the subject where she concluded "it could have gone that way."

I now want to analyze the major differences between the 2014 interview and the one in 2005 performed by those two websites Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron. Emma Watson's interview was civil and polite. Jo Rowling was candid and was not in an atmosphere colored by partisan fandom politics. Watson is without vested interest in making herself seem "right" and others be "wrong." Back in 2005, Emerson Spartz and Melissa Anelli were hand selected by Jo Rowling to be representatives of the Harry Potter fandom and to ask her questions after the publication of her sixth novel Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

That interview caused a lot of heartache for fans of the series. Here is a link to my analysis of that online interview and why I felt insulted by it.

While I did not appreciate being called delusional, the biggest insult for me was being told by Jo Rowling to go back and re-read the books because I must have missed clues. I hadn't missed clues, I had studied the text so well I was seeing sub-text and evaluating clues that weren't intended by the author to be clues.

That off-hand remark made me step away from the fandom that I had enjoyed for several years, and I have only read the sixth and seventh book once whereas the first five books I know forward and backward.

After reading that 2005 interview where Jo Rowling categorically stated she was going to write Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione as the love pairings in Book 7, I wrote my concession messages on a few boards. I also abandoned the writing project I had been working on which was detailing the arguments used in the Harry Potter Shipping Wars. I was partnered with a R/Hr and H/G friend, who had served as a beta reader for my novel length fifth year fanfic. We were putting the common arguments into a manner that was easy to navigate for newbies while trying to make it as free of invective as possible. The project was rendered moot not by the content of the sixth or seventh book, but by an interview.

The aspect that bothered me the most was the tone of that interview and how it made the author look bad. I feel J.K. Rowling was done a disservice by the fandom representatives she chose. They knew that shipping was the most controversial and divisive issue in the fandom. They could have tried to make peace in the fandom by trying to metaphorically put baking soda on a stove-top fire, instead they threw gasoline on it and watched the flames scorch the ceiling.

Four years after that interview I was a speaker at the Azkatraz convention held in San Francisco. I live in Northern California so getting to San Francisco is a day trip. I decided to dip my feet once again in fandom waters, if for no other reason than to meet up with some friends I hadn't seen in a few years. 
A few days before the symposium, I sent a message to Melissa Anelli and asked to meet with her. I wanted to give her my thoughts in person about that controversial interview.

I wasn't just a random run of the mill Harry/Hermione shipper asking the webmaster of a major Harry Potter fansite for a few minutes of her time. No, she knew who I was and we had met, albeit briefly, at the first HP symposium in Orlando in 2003. I had participated in a live ship debate and was the second chair of the Harry/Hermione side. She even mentioned me in her book.

Here I am giving a speech at the 2003 Nimbus Symposium supporting the Harry/Hermione ship.

I honestly thought I would have only about ten minutes (at most!) to tell her my thoughts on the matter, that she would nod, listen and then make me feel as if I had been heard. I was surprised when she engaged with me on the topic. We talked for about an hour and I felt at the end that nothing I said could make her recognize how her actions as a R/Hr partisan in the interview did not serve the needs of the fandom as a whole, and especially how hurtful it was reading her editorial comments inserted into the text such as: [All laugh; Melissa doubles over, hysterical, and may have died.] 

I felt that they were laughing at the expense of others. It was akin to gloating or spiking the football and doing a dance in the end zone.

She was a professional journalist and I had expected more from her. I had expected her to be an ambassador from the whole fandom and not as a partisan shipper. I compared it to reporters covering political candidates and trying to keep their personal political opinions out of their news coverage, unless they are writing editorials.

She did not like that analogy because she thought the difference was reporters inserting their opinions in electoral politics might have an impact on elections and that her interview covered fiction and what had been written. So it wasn't going to influence anything. Therefore, yes she had her opinions and to not mention them in the transcript would have been dishonest.

She considered the transcript she compiled as an accurate chronicle of the interview, and Jo Rowling approved the transcript before it went online. Therefore it was fine. She also felt that it wouldn't have mattered what was said because Harry/Hermione shippers were going to be mad because their side lost. I disagree with that opinion. I was mentally prepared prior to the 2005 interview to be told by JKR that she was planning on the R/Hr and H/G pairings, but I was not prepared to have my shipmates ridiculed in the manner that we were. 

My conversation with Melissa was cordial, and we left on good terms, but I continue to feel that Jo Rowling would have been better served if she had chosen different fandom ambassadors for such an important interview. 

Here is proof that we spoke at that conference.

Me and Melissa Anelli after we spoke at Azkatraz in San Francisco, July 2009.

Now, nine years later after the interview by The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet, we have the same fandom members who interviewed JKR in 2005 having found themselves in the uncomfortable and unexpected position as to worrying for a few days about what Jo Rowling said in an interview regarding shipping and whether or not she has changed her mind. After the full interview was made public, they have chosen to only focus on certain aspects of it and try to minimize or ignore others. 
It now appears JKR recognizes and acknowledges that the Harry/Hermione pairing had canon support and possibly, quite possibly, could have been a better fit for her heroine.

Yes, in the full Wonderland interview, Jo refers to Hermione as her heroine.

"I know that Hermione is incredibly recognisable to a lot of readers and yet you don't see a lot of Hermiones in film or on TV except to be laughed at. I mean that the intense, clever, in some ways not terribly self-aware, girl is rarely the heroine and I really wanted her to be the heroine."

Hermione was not referred to as a side-kick or as a best friend, but the heroine of the series. Pairing the hero and the heroine of a series is not an unusual or delusional pairing by any means.

I would like to see, nine years after the interview that caused so many hard feelings in the fandom, a joint statement of recognition written by someone on the staff of The Leaky Cauldron and/or Mugglenet. I would like it to read something like this:

"We recognize that Harry/Hermione shippers are loyal fans in the Harry Potter fandom who have provided spirited support for their ship before and after the publication of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.  Now, seven years after the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Jo Rowling admits she might have followed another direction if she followed her muse, but she stuck with her original plot line. So recognizing that we were all right in some aspects of this series, we should put aside our differences and embrace our common interests, namely our love of the Potterverse. Those who prefer H/Hr might be inspired by this latest interview to write more fanfic with their favorite ship, and we shall hopefully put this divisive topic behind us. We want to take this opportunity to apologize if our celebratory actions in 2005 made you feel alienated from the larger fandom."

Instead it seems both websites' analysis of the full Wonderland interview was designed more to maintain the position that the only thing that matters is the Ron/Hermione ship sailed and the Harry/Hermione ship sank. I do not think it would hurt their credibility in the full fandom to show a little respect for those with an alternate point of view and say, "as it turns out, your opinion had some merit."

 In the grand scheme of world and life events, betting on the wrong couple in the Hogwarts Love Sweepstakes isn't a catastrophe. It is good however, when people can be civil with one another. We should not be casting aspersions about people's intellect or morality because they came up with a different interpretation while reading literature. Especially when those romantic pairings are validated by the author. Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny were what J.K. Rowling planned and wrote. Now that J.K. Rowling has had time to reflect on her series, it appears that Harry/Hermione might be what she wishes she had written. That means both sides of the most divisive topic in the fandom can claim to have merit to their position.

My last point, in 2012, J.K. Rowling was quoted as saying that she would like to go back and re-write two of her books.  Imagine if she were to really regret pairing Ron and Hermione, she might decide to change more than just syntax and sentence structure to please her inner critic. I'm sure Bloomsbury and Scholastic would be willing to have new releases in the HP franchise and bookstores would love to have the Harry Potter money pipeline turned back on as well. Should she choose to change her romantic pairings then the H/Hr shippers wouldn't just have to settle for alternate universe fanfics, it could actually be "new canon."
I asked my teenaged son if he would be interested in reading a new Harry Potter book if it was re-written by J.K. Rowling. Without hesitation he replied, "Hells yeah!" I imagine that there would be many fans of the series who would also be interested in buying any new canon if it were written and published.

So please R/Hr shippers, take this opportunity to make peace with us, since we all profess to love the series and we can all claim to have support by the author. In other words: both sides won.

After the Nimbus live ship debate, the two ships were smiling for the camera. 
Proof that we can all get along.

Sincerely,

Linda C. McCabe AKA Pallas Athena (or just Athena)

Second chair for the Harry/Hermione ship debate in Nimbus 2003.

Yeah, eleven years ago I debated this subject in person in front of a ballroom full of people!
Author of the First Readers' Choice Award on Portkey.org for the novel length fifth year fic, Secrets, Lies and the Daily Prophet as well as a few H/Hr themed short stories.
Author of an epic historic fantasy set in the time of Charlemagne, Quest of the Warrior Maiden, including flying hippogriffs. Yes, it was inspired during my ship debating research days.

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2014/02/post-wonderland-interview-both-sides-of.html

J.K. Rowling, belated Harry/Hermione shipper

My friend John Granger clued me into a story about an interview with J.K. Rowling and how these revelations are burning up the internet and being posted and re-posted as news.

Now, I readily admit that this story isn't hard news.   It does not impact the world economy, ameliorate climate change or make any movement toward establishing world peace.

Nope. It is simply a human interest story, and there is a lot of interest in it. I believe this story is more important than detailing the legal troubles of Justin Bieber (My thoughts: deport Bieber) or anything having to do with anyone with the last name of Kardashian.

I feel this story about an author's change of heart in regard to the romantic pairings of her fictional characters *is* newsworthy, if for no other reason than due to the sheer popularity of the series.

The Harry Potter series is one of the most popular series in literature with millions of copies sold worldwide in many different languages. (I don't even want to take the time to verify what the current numbers are, but I know it is mind boggling how many copies sold which made her a billionaire.)

The series served as a refuge and escape for me back in the early 2000s. I began reading the Harry Potter novels in November of 2001 at the time that the first movie was released. I was impressed by the intricate world and bizarre cast of characters in the Potterverse.

I read the first four novels in a short span of time, then began re-reading them and then searching the internet to find out more information. That is when I discovered the online fandom.

The attacks on September 11, 2001 were recent and I found news from the real world to be painful and hard to bear. It was a nice diversion from news about world terrorism to instead attempt to decipher clues with other adults in the Harry Potter series.

I became a member of the Harry Potter for Grown Ups (HPfGUs) list serv and engaged in discussions looking at the smallest turn of phrase that might be helpful in predicting where the series was going and which characters were EverSoEvil! or ESE! Literary criticism with other nerdz was fun. I enjoyed reading wild and inventive theories and spinning my own with others who loved the series as much as I did.

I started reading Harry Potter fan fiction and became inspired to try my own hand at writing in order to flesh out my own wacky theories. It was in the process of writing my fifth year fic that I started really questioning the characters' motivations and I came to believe that Hermione was in love with Harry. That she was devoted to him, but knew he didn't feel the same way about her. So she kept her feelings to herself lest he begin to feel uncomfortable about her hanging around him all the time. "Eww, I don't like you in that way. I want to just be friends, but..."

She might get frozen out of being a part of the Trio and then it would just be Harry and Ron on the grand adventures.

So Hermione loved Harry, but kept her feelings close to her vest. That's what I thought. That's what I wrote and had a fic where at the end of the fifth year the two characters became a couple.

After finishing my fic, I began posting on the HPfGUs list serv again. This time I posted my thoughts on shipping. I made what I thought was a simple post about Hermione and Krum showing how it was pro Harry/Hermione or H/Hr. That post wound up being noticed by other shippers and after a request to reprint portions of my post on a debate thread on FictionAlley.org, I found myself being lured into the great H/Hr vs. Ron/Hermione (R/Hr) shipping debate.

Later, I wound up participating in the only live H/Hr and R/Hr shipping debate which was held at the first Harry Potter Symposium in Orlando, Florida in 2003.

The Shipping Debates were a big deal. JKR didn't know it at the time, she learned about it later. She was shaken by the intensity of the arguments when she stumbled upon the online debate threads.

Then she toyed with the fandom by making posts on her website that mentioned shipping and teased her fans about it. Then after the publication of the sixth book she invited two well known people from the fandom to interview her. That was when she unequivocally stated that the romantic pairings were Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione. The tone of that interview was not what I had hoped. There was laughter and mirth about the shipping choices and the word "delusional" was used to describe Harry/Hermione shippers. My full thoughts on that interview as well as quotes from JKR on her website about shipping can be found here. 

 (JKR's website has been revamped and those shipping quotes from 2006 and 2007 are no longer online, but they are in my blog post.)


The last volume was published in 2007 and many of her new fans have no idea of the debates that raged when the series was incomplete.

Therefore, as a recovering Harry Potter fandom addict, I welcomed learning that J.K. Rowling now feels that Hermione should have been paired with Harry Potter over Ron Weasley. Check out these quotes:

"I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That's how it was conceived, really," Rowling says in the interview. "For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione ended up with Ron."

"I know, I'm sorry," she adds. "I can hear the rage and fury it might cause some fans, but if I'm absolutely honest, distance has given me perspective on that. It was a choice I made for very personal reasons, not for reasons of credibility. Am I breaking people's hearts by saying this? I hope not."

Those quotes make me feel that I and my shipmates did not deserve being called "delusional."

Rowling also says that Ron and Hermione would have needed “relationship counseling.” 

Counseling. Ron and Hermione would have needed counseling.

Sigh.

Yeah. I didn't think the manner in which Ron taunted Hermione showed a depth of compassion, but instead a manner of trying to control her.

I wrote a post which detailed my dislike of this relationship and described how unhealthy I thought it would be due to Ron's underlying disrespect for Hermione. It reminded me of emotionally abusive relationships.

It was my reaction to the text and explaining why I did not need to see quotes from the books repeated on the bulletin boards again. I knew them, I had read them, and having someone reiterate the same points wouldn't make me stop and go "You're right. There is something's going on there." I could tell that Ron was possessive toward Hermione, but I didn't see that she had a similar interest in him. Instead the possessiveness and cutting insults (including Hermione's insults toward Ron) made me feel uncomfortable if a romantic relationship came from that dynamic.

My post became known as the Abusive!Ron theory, but it wasn't a theory at all. It was a lengthy discussion about my response to the interactions between Ron and Hermione in the text and why I thought it would be unhealthy basis of a romantic relationship if Ron didn't change his behavior toward her.

I felt that the politics of house-elves best demonstrated the problem of the Ron/Hermione relationship. I had also written an extensive post on the politics of house-elves and why Ron needed to change his underlying attitude toward the oppressed magical species or there would never be a chance for Ron and Hermione to be a successful couple.

As it turned out, Ron and Hermione finally became a couple when Ron made a mention in the thick of defending Hogwarts Castle by mentioning the welfare of the elves at the end of Book 7.

That plot point helped me feel somewhat vindicated, but these articles showing teaser quotes from the full interview (and I will want to read the full interview!), makes me feel even better.

Yes, I will admit there were anvil-sized clues pointing to R/Hr in the series, but I was a careful reader and saw subtle hints to Hermione caring for Harry. Maybe it was JKR's subconscious inclusion of the Harry/Hermione loyalty dynamic that led me to think H/Hr was a better romantic fit.

The problem was H/Hr went against JKR's the planned symbolic following of literary alchemical formulas.  Here is where we go deep into symbolism, and I credit John Granger's numerous writings on literary alchemy:

Ron represented elemental sulfur and Hermione represented mercury. Both are necessary in creating gold through alchemy. 


Yeah, I know how weird that sounds, but that was what JKR was doing. Harry's girlfriends had the following hair colors: black (Cho), white (one date with Luna), then red (Ginny) which correspond with three stages of alchemy: nigredo, albedo, rubedo. There was no room for a brown haired girl for Harry. Yet JKR subconsciously wrote Harry/Hermione as a relationship based on trust, loyalty and devotion. I was hoping that Jo while using alchemy as her underlying plot structure would not feel totally constrained to have follow it completely. I was hoping she might alter it to fit her own dramatic needs and have Harry/Hermione as the final romantic pairing and not Harry/Ginny with Ron/Hermione.

Now in retrospect, she is looking back at her story and the characters as they evolved during her story telling and she admits that Harry/Hermione would have been a better way to go!

It would have been emotionally satisfying to have her hero become romantically involved with his best friend who had been by his side from the beginning of his magical adventure, but it would have made Ron and Ginny jealous. There would have been a big love triangle within the Trio, and many, many Ron/Hermione shippers simply couldn't bear to think of Harry hurting Ron in that manner.

Yeah, and Jo thought of killing Ron. 

Had she done that, I think Ginny as a romantic partner for Harry would have disappeared altogether.

Anyway, I feel vindicated by this admission by Jo Rowling. Perhaps the Ron/Hermione shippers who gloated when they did their victory lap might remember some of the arguments that I and my shipmates posted years ago and consider we weren't  as wrong, wrong, WRONG as they thought we were at the time.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts on this human interest story.

Thanks,

Linda AKA Pallas Athena

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2014/02/jk-rowling-belated-harryhermione-shipper.html

Review of the movie Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

First some overall comments that do not include spoilers.

I thought this was one of the best adaptations of the series to the screen. I am glad they chose to split the story into two movies because the plot in the seventh book is so intricate that to try and condense it into a standard movie length story would oversimplify things to the point of eliminating the magic of the story.

If you have not read the series, the movie will probably confuse you. My husband has seen all the movies, but never read the books and he was confused by the movie. I had to explain some details about Horcruxes that I know were explained in the previous movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, (HPB), but that he probably forgot or maybe never really understood.

So if you are a casual fan of the series and have not read the books, I recommend seeing it with someone who has read all the books. They will then be able to explain things afterward to help you understand those things you missed.

Overall the special effects are wonderful and appear seamless. The tone of the movie is brooding and dark, but there are touches of humor to lighten the mood at times. There are odes to the darkness of World War II and attempts at race purification.

The acting is great and some of the stellar British actors involved in the series shine even when they have few lines and only a few moments onscreen. The child actors have grown into their parts and no longer appear uncomfortable in their roles.

After this point, I will be discussing aspects of the movie and for those who do not want to read spoilers, please stop reading this post now.

SPOILER Section

Movies by their nature as a visual medium are different than books as a vehicle for storytelling. Things that might need pages of description in a book can be conveyed with a few frames in a movie. There were many condensing of events to speed things along. For example, the death of Hedwig was done differently than in the book, but it worked and streamlined the narrative. Other examples of introducing information quickly was a line by Bill Weasley of being attacked by Fenrir Greyback, (since that event was not included in the movie version of HBP), and the radio news mentioning that Severus Snape was the newly appointed headmaster of Hogwarts.

I especially liked one of the beginning scenes where Hermione gave her parents a memory charm and erased her own image from family photographs. It was a sacrifice that moved me to tears.

The Seven Harry Potters scene included some great bits of physical humor. The twins, Fred and George, were only on screen for a short while, but they stole every scene they were in. I particularly liked Saint George quietly sipping his tea while watching his little sister kissing Harry Potter in the kitchen.

The scenes in Grimmauld Place were creepy as I expected. I do wish however, that we had been able to see the transformation of Kreacher after being given Regulus' locket. I thought that was one of the most touching aspects of the whole series.

Imelda Staunton gave another cloyingly evil performance as Dolores Umbridge. I also liked the casting of Nick Moran as Scabior. He looked dangerous and had a Bad Boy look about him which made him ever so watchable.

The one thing that bugged me about the sequence at the Ministry of Magic was the delay of the Trio leaving the building once their Polyjuice Potion disguises wore off. Yes, it was funny that Ron Weasley had a woman who thought he was her husband and she wouldn't let him leave. However, Harry was standing there without anything covering his face and didn't try to disguise himself. Really? Come on. He's Undesirable #1, he's in the belly of the beast and is just waiting for his friend to extricate himself from a woman's arms? Really?

I had to re-read that passage and realized that the effects of the Polyjuice Potion held until after they left the Ministry. :shakes head: So that's one scene I don't really understand the different choices made by the screenwriter and director.

I mean, the Trio should be practicing CONSTANT VIGILANCE. Harry should have covered his face and pretended to cough. He should cough enough to get people to want to avoid him, but not enough to bring unwanted attention to himself.

The splinching worked, but my husband was wondering what "splinching" meant. I had to whisper the explanation to him.

I liked Xenophilius Lovegood, his strange house and the animation sequence telling the story of the Three Brothers. I thought that worked well. The animation reminded me of the Tim Burton style.

I loved the scenes in Malfoy Manor where Lucius Malfoy looked like a broken man. His choice years ago to become a follower of Voldemort had taken its toll. He was now a prisoner in his own home with unwanted guests that he could not evict.

Tom Felton as Draco also looked as if he regretted becoming a Death Eater. He had followed his father's footsteps, but there were signs that he did not like what was happening. The Evil was just a bit too much for him. Or so it seemed.

I was glad to see Dobby once again. He had been a part of other books, but this was his first reappearance in a movie since Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Dobby was one of my favorite characters. He was odd, but fiercely loyal to Harry Potter. The one thing I did not understand was the clothing he wore. Dobby was a free elf. He should have been wearing something other than a nasty pillowcase. He could worn a flower print shirt, a strange necktie, and paisley printed shorts. Instead they just gave him clunky shoes to wear to designate his free elf status. Bah! Dobby was free, he deserved clothes.

Beyond that minor wardrobe related criticism, I loved the scenes with Dobby. He was a great character who helped rescue Harry and his friends. The death of Dobby was something that made me cry both in the reading of the book and in the movie. His sacrifice on behalf of Harry Potter was touching.

I am glad that the movie ended there as well as Voldemort grave robbing from Dumbledore's tomb. It shows where both sides in the war are at this point in time. It will also allow for the action/adventure sequences of Gringotts, Aberforth's confessions about Dumbledore, Snape's death and deathbed memories, the sacrifice in the Forbidden Forest as well as the ending duel to be shown in detail for great cinematic glory. Part II should be a wonderful ending to a marvelous series.

For those who are just fans of the series, I would love to hear your thoughts on the movie in the comment section.

SHIPPING Thoughts from a recovering Harry Potter addict

Now onto the matter of Harry and Hermione's relationship in this film. For those who were not a part of the online Harry Potter fandom, you will not understand how a movie scene that was not in the book could be potentially controversial.

It is only because I was a part of the fandom and participated in the online debates that I realize the dance scene could be like chum to sharks. It is likely to set off a feeding frenzy. The most vituperative subject of debates in the online fandom dealt with romantic relationships, also known as "shipping."

I looked at it as a communal attempt at in-depth literary analysis. It was not the passive writing a paper for a professor and hoping to get a good grade. No, it was putting forth your thoughts in public and having others challenge your assumptions and then offer up their own theories. Sometimes it was just getting kudos or cyber stinkbombs sent your way.

I argued on behalf of the Harry/Hermione ship. I also argued that I welcomed a Love Triangle between the Trio. That was something many Ron/Hermione shippers simply did not want to contemplate. They thought it would be too painful and that Harry wouldn't want to risk hurting his friend Ron.

I feel that love triangles can be powerful dramatic constructs. It has inherent conflict in its structure. There had been so many other love triangles used in the series that having a love triangle between Harry/Hermione/Ron seemed inevitable.

As it turns out, I was right. Jo Rowling used a Love Triangle within the Trio and it worked well, both in the book and in the movie. Ron was certainly jealous at the thought of Harry and Hermione becoming a couple. It showed on his face with black circles under his eyes when he wore the cursed locket around his neck and saw them talking together. Later, when he was challenged by Harry to destroy the Horcrux his fears were demonstrated by the torturous images shown by a piece of Voldemort's soul depicting his friends in a compromising position. Something that would drive him mad and perhaps make him use the sword against Harry and not the locket.

All of that was in the canon. However, there was a scene in the movie that was not in the book and it surprised me.

The Dance Scene.

Ron stormed off and left Harry Potter for his search for Horcruxes, Hermione chose to remain behind and not leave with Ron. Harry and Hermione are alone in a tent and are listening to music on a radio. Harry coaxes Hermione to join him in a dance. At first it is a light and breezy dance, a little awkward in the steps, but it ends with them in an embrace.

They could have easily kissed at that point. Hermione looked as if she considered kissing Harry then deliberately avoided succumbing to that temptation.

As I was sitting in the theater, I could not help but think how upset the Ron/Hermione shippers I had debated all those years ago would be with that scene. All it would have taken was one kiss and then the pairings Would Have Changed Forever. Harry would have realized that the woman for him was not his best friend's little sister, but his other best friend who had been by his side through countless adventures. A woman who had saved his life several times and had shown unwavering loyalty and sacrifice on his behalf.

There are countless number of Harry/Hermione fanfics that are nothing more than finding some kind of excuse to get them alone together so they can discover that they are attracted to one another. One kiss and then fade to black or possibly NC-17 territory. It all depends on the fic writer and what their intent is on writing the story of them becoming a couple.

In this case, if they had kissed it would probably have led to them being in bed together. These were two teens with raging hormones were alone together where no one could hear them, see them, or find them. They were also under the ever present threat of being found, captured and killed. That kind of wartime stress has led to many quick romances. In this case it would have been for two best friends discovering their attraction to one another. It would have changed the romantic pairings forever. It would also have been Ron's greatest fear when he destroyed the locket: Hermione had chosen Harry over him.

Another thing that surprised me about the movie was seeing Jo Rowling's name in the credits as a producer. She could easily have had that scene removed from the movie if she wanted. She had given a note to the screenwriter in HBP when there was a bit of dialogue of Dumbledore reminiscing of a long-lost girlfriend that said, "Dumbledore is gay." That nixed those proposed lines.

Rowling allowed the dance scene showing the possibility of Harry and Hermione becoming a romantic couple to remain in the movie. Why?

Was it a bone for Harry/Hermione shippers?

Or was it included because it was good drama?

I believe it was the latter, because I believe in the power of drama.

I am also certain that some stalwart Ron/Hermione shippers will find that scene offensive because of their years of arguing against H/Hr. That would make them not want to see even subtle hints of that romantic pairing.

Jo Rowling admitted in an interview published in Melissa Anelli's book Harry: A History that it could have gone Harry/Hermione.

"Now, the fact is that Hermione shares moments with Harry that Ron will never be able to participate in. He walked out. She shared something very intense with Harry. So, I think it could have gone that way." Page 266

Precisely. We were not delusional at all. We saw the romantic potential that could have been.

And now, there is even a poll (totally non-scientific) by MTV to see whether or not people wished it had gone H/Hr over R/Hr.

As I am writing this, H/Hr is winning.

Last night my twelve year old son asked me why Jo Rowling went with Ron and Hermione as a couple when he thinks that Harry and Hermione would have made a better couple. I sighed and then had to try and explain to him that Jo Rowling was using literary alchemy as the underlying framework for her story. Therefore Harry's girlfriends had hair color that went in the following sequence: black, white, red. (Cho, Luna - they did have one little date in HBP, Ginny) This was supposed to reflect the three stages of alchemy in order: nigredo, albedo, rubedo.

Hermione had brown hair, so she didn't fit in that schema.

Instead, Hermione was supposed to represent the element mercury and Ron was sulphur, both are needed in the alchemical formula to create gold.

For those shaking their heads, I point you to my friend John Granger's capable hands in understanding the usage of alchemy throughout the series. It was something I didn't want to acknowledge as constraining Rowling's dramatic choices, but as it turns out: John's original assumptions and predictions of Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione were spot on because those pairings work alchemically.

In case you were wondering, my son shook his head at my explanation. It wasn't what he wanted to hear.

What are your thoughts of the movie? Did that dance scene delight or bother you?

http://lcmccabe.blogspot.com/2010/11/review-of-movie-harry-potter-and.html

The Harry Potter Lexicon Decision

The U.S. District Court Judge Robert P. Patterson issued his ruling in the case Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. et al vs. RDR Books et al. He ruled in favor of J.K. Rowling and against Steve Vander Ark in the matter of book The Harry Potter Lexicon going beyond fair use of copyrighted material and found that it infringed on Rowling's intellectual property rights.

The full 68 page decision can be read here.

I blogged about this case last year when the lawsuit was filed. In that post I was upfront saying that I had met Steve Vander Ark on two occasions and had corresponded with him a few times via email. I classified our relationship as acquaintances, but not as friends.

(I honestly do not think that I rank high enough on his radar screen to be considered as anything more than an acquaintance.)

In that post I had not taken any definitive side on the lawsuit because I felt that there was not enough public information on the case, I knew there was enough legal ambiguity on the issue of fair use and copyright law, and I did not want to take sides based on emotion or out of a sense of loyalty.

Now that the decision has been rendered, I still wish that RDR Books had responded in a more forthcoming manner when they were first contacted by the lawyers from Warner Brothers. For starters, I think they should have provided a copy of the manuscript for review.

If there could have been modifications made to the manuscript at that stage ameliorating objections from Rowling, then the book might have been published without the lawsuit being filed. However, that is a big, "What if?" and it is impossible to go back in time to reverse the events as they happened.

Here is the statement by Jo Rowling on the ruling that appears on Publisher's Weekly online:

“I took no pleasure at all in bringing legal action and am delighted that this issue has been resolved favourably,” said Rowling in a statement. “I went to court to uphold the right of authors everywhere to protect their own original work. The court has upheld that right. The proposed book took an enormous amount of my work and added virtually no original commentary of its own. Now the court has ordered that it must not be published. Many books have been published which offer original insights into the world of Harry Potter. The Lexicon just is not one of them.”

I take that to mean that as long as writers include sufficient original commentary and provide new insights on her series, she will probably not interfere with the publication of companion books.

That is good to know, because I have friends who have published books in the past analyzing the Harry Potter series and are working on future books as well.

I am referring to John Granger's work whose most recent books include How Harry Cast His Spell: The Meaning Behind the Mania for J. K. Rowling's Bestselling Books and The Deathly Hallows Lectures: The Hogwarts Professor Explains the Final Harry Potter Adventure.

I am confident that Rowling will not have a problem with any of Granger's companion titles for he definitely provides analysis and original insight to her work and -- while I may not always agree with his arguments -- his writings are always thought provoking.

The ruling against Vander Ark will stop the Harry Potter Lexicon from being published in book form, but he has another book about the Harry Potter series in the works. His other project is a travel guide for Potter fans. It will be titled: In Search of Harry Potter and has not yet been released.

The Guardian mentions the forthcoming book as:

The independent publisher describes the resulting book as an "extraordinary travel book" which "evokes the myths and magic of Harry Potter". Methuen managing director Peter Tummons said that at present, each chapter includes a "few words" taken from the Harry Potter books themselves. "We've asked for approval but I guess in the end we will probably delete them because it may not come, or be denied." The book is illustrated with Vander Ark's own photos.

I saw Vander Ark's presentation at Sonorus in 2007 and was impressed. He included photos he had taken in Scotland of where he surmised that Hogwarts was located. It even had a sign near a rural train station saying "Keep Out" which since we are only mere Muggles, we would see as opposed to a glorious castle.

I wish Steve well with this publishing venture and that the legal wrangling on these issues will be over for all the parties. I also hope that the fandom does not respond with venom toward anyone. I could not stomach reading many of the comments posted on various fansites that spewed vitriol mostly in the direction of Steve, but some was also directed toward Rowling.

They deserve better.


ETA: After I finished this post I heard a segment on National Public Radio's Talk of the Nation interviewing an intellectual property rights attorney discussing this case. The audio will be available later here.

Orson Scott Card on the Rowling/Vander Ark lawsuit

Thanks to the wonder of Google alerts I was made aware of a recent editorial written by noted science fiction author Orson Scott Card.

He is not amused by the lawsuit filed by J.K. Rowling against RDR books in the Harry Potter Lexicon case.

In the piece Card calls Rowling a hypocrite, insane, and a puffed-up coward.

Yikes.

I guess he won't be on her Christmas card list this year.

Edited to add:

This morning after I read the post by Card, I forwarded a link to my friend John Granger. He was inspired to write a thoughtful and thought provoking post which assimilated reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by Card, Steven King and A.S. Byatt and then challenged us to think about how your opinion of an author can color your interpretation of their work.

It's a great post and I recommend that you read it and give him your feedback on the topic.

---

From looking at Card's website I discovered that he is having a literary boot camp for writers this July in San Diego. The description sounds like it would be an intense experience. Registration is limited to only fifteen people for the boot camp, but there is a shorter two day (but twelve hour a day) writing class that precedes it.

Check it out if you are interested.

It would be a chance to learn from an expert.

Sins of the Media: JKR vs. Vander Ark, San Francisco vs. Marin, and Flag Pins

I apologize for the hiatus in my blogging but I have been diligently editing my manuscript, expanding scenes, adding nuances, tweaking, all based on recent feedback.

I have been itching to put down my thoughts about media coverage that has made my blood boil. There has been a lot of criticism written about the three subjects I am going to address, but I have not seen my particular angles reflected anywhere and so I shall share them with you.

Here are three recent controversies covered in the media:

1. The lawsuit between J.K. Rowling and RDR Books over the possible publication of The Harry Potter Lexicon.
2. The brouhaha about Senator Barack Obama’s comments made at a fundraiser in Northern California which included the word “bitter.”
3. ABC News recent televised debate between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton and calls to boycott ABC News.

First off comes the lawsuit by J.K. Rowling, the author of the wildly popular Harry Potter series, against RDR Books who had signed Steve Vander Ark, one of the most prominent members of the Harry Potter fandom, to publish in book form basically what was available online on Vander Ark's wildly popular website. The Harry Potter Lexicon would in essence be an encyclopedia of the Harry Potter series and because Rowling had announced she planned on writing her own encyclopedia of her series, she saw RDR’s plans as potentially threatening the success of her future book.

I mentioned in a previous blog entry my initial thoughts on the JKR/Steve Vander Ark brouhaha and classified my relationship with Steve as being an acquaintance but not a friend.

I have been paying close attention to the lawsuit because it deals with intellectual property rights, what constitutes fair use, etc. I am not an expert by any means on intellectual property law. My knowledge on the subject is based reading The Copyright Permission and Libel Handbook and Kirsch’s Handbook of Publishing Law as well as hearing a few attorneys speak on the subject a few times at various writers conferences and writers club meetings.

I care about intellectual property rights because I want to know what are my rights and responsibilities as a writer.

That means that I know enough to realize that this subject to know this case is very complex and it is not a “slam dunk” or “open and shut case.” Nope. It represents a murky area of property law and is therefore being watched carefully because it will likely be precedent setting, unless the parties take the judge’s advice and settle their disagreements out of court.

The aspect of the media coverage that irked me was how some reporters deliberately inserted their opinion about Steve Vander Ark’s looks. It was uncalled for and also WRONG.

One article by the wire service Reuters said:

“An emotional Vander Ark, 50, wearing spectacles similar to those worn by Harry Potter…”

That actually made me pause in my reading because I have met Steve and I definitely would have noticed if he had worn glasses with round lenses.

For the record, Harry Potter’s iconic glasses look like this:

If Steve Vander Ark wore glasses like that it would have struck me as a bit odd, as if he were taking this fantasy thing a bit too far. I think that was the subtle (or not so subtle) intent of the reporter who filed the story.

However, it had been a year since I saw him last and people can change their eyewear. I asked a friend of mine about that and he gratefully helped scour the web to determine that Steve’s glasses were more elliptical shaped than round. They look more like this:

Another reporter, this time from the New York Times, felt it necessary to describe Vander Ark in distinctly Potterverse terms:

“The librarian, Steven Jan Vander Ark, had the mild-mannered demeanor of Ron Weasley, and the intelligence, charm — and haircut — of Harry Potter. Even his name sounds like that of a character in one of the books, if preceded by “Lord” or “Master.” Although, at 50, he is older than Ms. Rowling, 42, he looked like a schoolboy, with an unlined face and caramel-colored hair parted down the middle.”

Ahem. Anyone who is familiar with the series would know that Ron Weasley is anything but mild-mannered, and well, Harry Potter’s hair is notorious for being black and having messy cowlicks.

Steve may have a boyish face, but his hairstyle is not like Harry Potter’s. He would have had to dye it black and come to court with a bed-head.

Honestly, the reporters were stretching to make a visual comparison between a fan of the Harry Potter series and one of the characters. It annoys me because not only are these comparisons untrue, but this done deliberately. I wonder what literary character they would have chosen as a comparison if he was balding and had a comb over. Would they then just throw their hands in the air and call him Ebenezer Scrooge?

For those interested in seeing what Steve Vander Ark really looks like, here’s a decent photo.

My assumption is that the reporters who attacked his looks thought that this fifty year old guy should “get a life” and not obsess over a children’s series, so they made fun of him in the hopes of making the public dislike him for taking on a popular author. That is my reaction and admittedly, I have no real idea what the reporters were thinking when they described Steve Vander Ark in the manner they did, but it feeds my suspicions about the veracity of today’s journalists. It also makes me think that they did not know to report about the intricacies of the legal arguments and found it easier to try and entertain their readers rather than to inform.

Now onto my second subject: the media’s inability to tell the difference between San Francisco and Marin Counties.

This is another minor point, but it goes to show that the media is sloppy when it comes to fact-checking. The recent dustup about a comment made by Senator Obama regarding some people in Pennsylvania as being “bitter” was made in a private fundraiser in the town of Kentfield in Marin County. It was not in San Francisco.

In my first attempt at writing this blog entry I inserted a map from Google maps to help illustrate my point. Unfortunately, I believe that is what made Blogger eat my post. So rather than suffer a fourth blog related melt down, here is a link to a map if you would like to see where Kentfield is located in proximity to San Francisco.

I actually know two people who attended that now infamous fundraiser and so I know it was not in San Francisco. It was in Marin County.

Now, admittedly San Francisco is far more famous than Marin County, so the first accounts of this tempest in a teapot used San Francisco as a landmark for people to understand where this took place. I remember hearing reporters saying that the fundraiser was in Marin County which is north of San Francisco. Then as the talking heads furor grew, the later accounts truncated the description to being in “San Francisco.”

Why does this matter to me? Well, I know that it is wrong, and I hate mistakes being perpetuated.

This error has been repeated enough that has become The Truth and the original facts are rendered incidental. I hate that.

It is one thing for us to not understand the true origins of legends from our past, but it is another thing to willfully disregard simple facts such as location as being too troublesome to a narrative.

Another reason that this error grates on my nerves is this type of mistake is a longstanding pet peeve of a local columnist. She hates it when the geography in our community is mangled by lazy out-of-town reporters. As if consulting a map was too onerous a task for reporters to do before filing a story.

After reading several columns of her poking fun at magazines which surreptitiously move our county seat of Santa Rosa from Sonoma County to that of Napa County, I started getting a wee bit sensitive on the issue.

Why does that bother us so much? One it is sloppy and lazy, then there is also an intense rivalry with our neighboring county to the east. The mountain range that divides us is affectionately known as The Continental Divide.

Don’t be confusing Napa and Sonoma on us. As one of our local celebrities Tommy Smothers is fond of saying:

“Sonoma makes wine.

Napa makes…auto parts.”

So getting back to the media: every time they get sloppy with the facts someone notices. Now the large general audience may not recognize every error, but each time a reporter or commentator gets lazy and reports inaccuracies some people will be the wiser and they will think of it as a strike against the profession. It feeds the feeling of ill will which leads me to my third point.

The most recent televised debate between the Democratic candidates for president hosted by ABC News has been widely panned.

Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulous and ABC News earned every negative comment that has been hurled in their general direction. The American people deserved better than a waste of national airtime talking about flag pins and trying to assign guilt by association from the acts and words of others.

This debate was going to generate huge ratings for whatever network carried it because of the stakes involved in the presidential race, but not due to the hosts or their questions. If ABC News thought that this debate was going to showcase two of their most prominent anchors and hoped that might translate into new viewers for their nightly news broadcasts as well as their Sunday morning chat show, they were wrong.

The fallout of that debate has included calls for a boycott of ABC News. I sympathize with that gesture, but I cannot join that cause because to boycott you have to give up something. I cannot be part of a boycott of ABC News because I stopped watching network news years ago. In fact, I was unsure whether Charles Gibson was host of “Good Morning America” or the evening news. That shows how little I paid attention or even cared.

I do not watch televised local news nor do I watch national network news and have not done so for many years.

I used to watch it though. I used to watch it all the time. It was part of my daily routine along with reading the newspaper. I still read the paper, but I no longer watch network news.

The feeling of discontent with the nightly dose of carnage leading the local news grew as well as disgust with the increasing infotainment styled stories to titillate the viewers. I used to live in the Midwest and my Midwestern sensibility was shocked when on a visit to Los Angeles, the local news led off their broadcast with the day’s events in the Zsa Zsa Gabor Cop Slapping Trial.

I could understand that being the top story for “Entertainment Tonight,” but the local ABC affiliate? I was aghast. And well, to me that was the beginning of the descent of integrity of news and sliding over into what should be the domain of celebrity/sleaze tabloid shows.

At some point I stopped watching the local news and found that my attitude improved. Somewhere along the line I also stopped watching the network news. That’s the thing about habits, once you break a habit you might not pick it up again.

Therein lies the rub with network news because their viewing audience is shrinking and it is aging. The demographics for network news are getting worse every year and they are failing to attract younger audiences to replace those who have died.

The televised news media has become largely scandal and celebrity driven. I remember being in an airport several years ago and catching CNN covering some aspect of news in our federal government I was interested in, but they interrupted that story to show a press conference about the “Runaway Bride.”

Disgusted, I left that television monitor and found a quiet place to read a book while waiting for my plane.

Time and again the American populace is treated with tabloid news stories rather than covering stories of substance. It makes me sick. If I want tabloid news, I’ll seek it out.

It may sound strange, but I now get my televised news from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report, and also Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Two are comedy shows and one is overtly biased news. I appreciate them because they cut through the spin and point out hypocrisy either through satire or by droll comments.

This habit started by my catching one episode of “The Daily Show” and enjoying the satirical take on the news. I tuned in again and again, soon it was became a habit and part of my routine. A similar thing happened with Olbermann’s show. I caught one night’s show, I liked it, later I saw another and another. Now I specifically schedule time to watch its initial broadcast or I try to catch a rebroadcast. Every day.

I need that filter for my news, because many times reporters act like dictation machines and do not take the time to do any fact checking. I want statements by public officials to be analyzed for veracity and rectified against the facts. If I did not have Olbermann and Stewart to filter my news I would probably sound like a crazy woman screaming at the television set "Do they think the American people are irretrievably stupid or that we simply have a memory of a gnat?"

It would not be pretty, so for the sake of my sanity and for my family I refrain from watching unfiltered news.

I realize that I am not the only one who turns to Stewart and Colbert for news. Frankly it is an indictment against the mainstream media that many people prefer to turn to comedy shows to get their news rather than ABC, NBC, or CBS.

The saddest thing is that we need a press corps that will ask tough questions and dig to find hidden truths. I believe that the people have a Right To Know. The press is the only profession that is specifically given Constitutional protections from interference by our government.

I wish that the news media would stop covering nonsense stories such as whatever Britney Spears or Paris Hilton are doing today and cover stories which actually impact the health and welfare of the American public.

I do not care that none of the three major presidential candidates choose to wear flag pins on their lapels. It is an insignificant fashion statement and irrelevant in determining who would best lead this country.

Instead I would prefer that the media asked questions like “how do you plan on forestalling possible bankruptcy of our federal government?”

Linda

Oh and in case anyone was wondering, I am not directly related to Nash McCabe. She is the woman asked that silly question about flag lapel pins. Although who knows? Maybe she or her husband are fifteenth cousins seven times removed or some such thing.