2008 Woodie Awards
I confess that I have never read a single Harry Potter book (I think I saw one of the movies) and only have the foggiest idea of what the plot entails (it involves a boy wizard I take it?) but even so, I was intrigued by the buzz surrounding J.K. Rowling’s admission that two central characters die in the final installment of her immensely successful series.
One of Rowling’s rationales for taking this rather drastic route is that “killing[ing] them off…means there can be no non-author-written sequels.” In other words, she hopes to prevent other individuals from drafting future Harry Potter books and mooching off her ingenuity. But let’s be realistic – does anyone truly believe that killing Harry, Hermione, and/or Ron will stop starved (or not so starved) writers from earning a buck and seizing an opportunity when they see one?
How hard is it to write prequels, new novels that develop existing storylines or, take a page out of the Hogwarts’ method by exercising the mighty power of the pen to pull off a magic act of the writer’s own invention, à la “actually, Harry was still alive and trapped in another dimension!” Granted, I have no idea how the characters die but I can probably envision a half dozen ways to resurrect the hapless victims. At the risk of going out on a limb, I’m guessing, so can all would-be authors.
Rowling also revealed that she didn’t specify which characters meet their maker, partly out of a desire not “to receive hate mail.” Come on. Did Rowling honestly think that simply informing fans that two of their beloved protagonists die wouldn’t incite angry letters? I imagine that by now the endless string of burlap mail bags have started to arrive. Remember the famous scene in “Miracle on 34th Street”? Yea, something like that.
Here’s the problem: people don’t agree on what it means to be an American anymore. Consider two responses to Harold Pinter’s Nobel address. On the one hand, The Nation rushes to embrace his speech. On the other, Keelin McDonell calls it “vile.” So one camp sees him as a prophet-like critic whose excortiations of our country are justified, and ones that we should really strive to address in national policy. The other thinks he’s an anti-American buffoon. Both sides call themselves ‘liberal’ and paint themselves as essentially concerned for the future of American democracy.
Both sides have gone about this the wrong way. I already made that point. What I wrote was perhaps somewhat controversial. So let me try to flesh the issue out somewhat more from the standpoint of the critic.
Harold Pinter is not an American. Labelling him “anti-American,” in that case, is truly meaningless. Sure, he is. But who cares? He has no ties to this country, and is under no obligation to defend something- American-ness (an issue I will problematize in a second)- to which he has no ties, swears no allegiance. This is a contortion of what Walter Russell Mead calls Jacksonian nationalism. A manifestation of this would be the “oh yeah? I don’t care” response- also known as the “Team America” response.
As I say, Pinter is not an American. So it’s not surprising that his representation of America is highly flawed. He completely ignores the existence of a progressive, pragmatic tradition in American intellectual history that provides a stark counterpoint to the values he inscribes to this country. Harold, how about Emerson, Peirce, James, Dewey, Hook, Mills, Du Bois, Rorty? And to American progressives, why don’t you embrace these thorougly American figures?
In the mid 1970s, the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the catalog of mental disorders. I’m not sure that anyone back then would have guessed that in 2005 we’d be addressing the intersection between homosexuality and psychology from virtually the exact opposite perspective. Today, the debate focuses on whether or not individuals who are extremely biased against certain groups (e.g. gays, African-Americans, Jews) suffer from a disorder.
The discussion raises dozens, if not hundreds, of salient concerns but what follows are a few key points/questions that popped into my mind as I read the article:
1. In some sense, just having this debate marks a significant step forward for the gay rights movement. Most of society used to deem homosexuals as the ones with the “problem” – now it appears that the norm has switched. Pretty remarkable.
2. I wonder if there is a growing tendency to quickly label anomalous behaviors as psychological disorders. Do we live in a society where it is in vogue to pay a visit to one’s shrink and take pills to remedy almost any problem?
3. Can a societal good be served by treating extreme forms of bias as a mental disorder? Frankly, a society might be better off if the people in that society operated under the assumption that those who espouse extreme forms of hatred suffer from a kind of delusion. With that sort of attitude, individuals would be less inclined to legitimize such views. However, this is not to say that the potential benefits would be tremendous – especially since most of us would probably never assign any credence to racist rants. But, for example, those who do harbor racist beliefs, to the point where these notions debilitate them in their daily lives, might be more likely to come to terms with the fact that their views are unacceptable and, as such, strive to adjust their outlook.
4. Finally, I think this Washington Post article sums it up nicely when the writer states:
If [the proposal] succeeds, it could have huge ramifications on clinical practice, employment disputes and the criminal justice system. Perpetrators of hate crimes could become candidates for treatment, and physicians would become arbiters of how to distinguish “ordinary prejudice” from pathological bias.
Strikes me as a good thing. It’s really the embodiment of cultural decadence and the useless spending of money.
While watching Da Ali G Show with friends last weekend, I remarked that I was surprised that the Kazakhstan government had not taken legal action against comedian “Ali G” (née Sacha Baron Cohen) for his portrayal of “Borat” the Kazakhstani reporter. Borat is a popular comic personage among American youth, but others aren’t laughing. Even though I like the show a lot, it comes as no surprise (especially in a world suffused with legal suits and court proceedings) that Kazakhstan’s Foreign Ministry threatened legal action against the comedian.
The conflict raises the question of how far is too far when depicting another culture in a comedic light. Whereas the problem of offensive portrayal used to be generally limited to specific groups within a larger population (e.g. the blackface minstrelsy of the late 19th – early 20th century), now the scope is much broader and transcends international borders. Although we’ve reached a stage where goods and ideas are readily imported and exported across the global marketplace, mankind has a ways to go before insensitivity towards other cultures (intentional or not) is a thing of the past. Of course, this does not necessarily mean that we should look forward to a dull and humorless future. Ultimately, it is a matter of achieving some level of mutual respect and understanding. When the writers on Fox’s animated show “Family Guy” make a crack about Canadians, they can feel pretty secure that no Canadians will be up in arms over a silly joke.
I know nothing about the man, and I’ve not read any of his work (maybe I will during my upcoming vacation). I would note that a dramatist hasn’t won the Prize in a couple of years.
Today was either Columbus Day or Indigenous People’s Day.
You chose through your actions.
That’s the new baby panda at the National Zoo. It’s cuteness is not a partisan issue.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
