"Dumbledore is gay": my reaction

Ok, so JKR has said Dumbledore is gay. This has provoked a variety of reactions. Some say it’s great, and shows that people of any sexuality can be great in their field. Some say it has ruined Dumbledore’s character for them. Some are just puzzled as to why it wasn’t mentioned in the books. Some are convinced she made it up on the spot to incite the religious fundamentalists.

In an interview a few days after the revelation, JKR said she’d known Dumbledore’s sexuality since before book one was published. This is consistent with how she has written the books – she knew basically all of it before book one came out in 1997. She’d already been working on it for seven years. I’m happy to take her word for it. She didn’t make it up on the spot. The reason she actually revealed the information was that she was asked a very direct question by a fan, something along the lines of ‘Dumbledore was a great advocate of the power of love, but did he ever fall in love himself?’ In case you haven’t heard, it turns out that Dumbledore was indeed gay and had a youthful infatuation with his friend Gellert Grindelwald. This of course makes Dumbledore’s story even more tragic. Not only did he lose his father to Azkaban, his mother to a premature death, his sister possibly by his own hand, and the friendship of his brother Aberforth, but he also lost the man he loved. This would also explain why it took Dumbledore so long to agree to hunt down and defeat Grindelwald. Ironic that love, the supreme virtue according to Dumbledore, was essentially the cause of World War 2. The reason that Dumbledore’s sexuality wasn’t explicitly stated in the books is because it wasn’t relevant to the main Harry-centred plot.

Normally this would be all I have to say on the subject, but the reaction of some fans has surprised me a little. It’s those who say that the character of Dumbledore has been ruined for them, and they’ll never look at him the same way again. Some have even said it puts a new angle on his relationship with Harry, or they’re now not sure whether to let their children read the books.

I don’t have a problem with Dumbledore being gay. I haven’t read the books since the announcement but I don’t think that Dumbledore being gay will have any bearing on the plot. The only difference is that there will be a different slant on his relationship with Grindelwald compared to before we knew of his sexuality. I fail to see how his sexuality can ‘ruin’ his character. Some will say that homosexuality is wrong. Regardless of my own views on that subject, since when was Dumbledore perfect anyway? We already know that in his youth he had a similar ideology to that of Voldemort! JKR was careful to make sure none of the major characters came across as flawless, not even the saint-like Lupin. Dumbledore being gay doesn’t make him any less powerful a wizard, any less intelligent or wise, any less kind or noble. Dumbledore being gay is just another piece of information about a character in the books that has a slight effect on how we view one of the relationships in the story.

JK Rowling vs Harry Potter Lexicon

JK Rowling: author of the biggest-selling series of all time, holder of numerous world records, super-celebrity, known across the world, first person to become a billionaire from writing books.

The Harry Potter Lexicon: online Potter encyclopedia, by far the biggest source of information on Harry Potter in any form, winner of JK Rowling's 'Fansite of the Year' award. The immensity and significance of this website cannot be overstated.

So what's the deal with the lawsuit? Well, in 2007 the lexicon planned to publish the website in book format. Essentially they were releasing a comprehensive Harry Potter Encyclopedia. JK wasn't happy about this and filed a lawsuit seeking 'damages copyright and federal trademark infringement'. Huh? Basically, for many years it has been well known that JKR plans to release her own encyclopedia with lots of extra information in. She claims that the release of the lexicon book pre-empts this and that the lexicon is just trying to make money out of her work.

In her defense, I must say that releasing this book is a crazy idea. Whatever Steve Vander Ark, editor-in-chief of the lexicon, says, the book is clearly just intended to make a profit, as it is just the website on paper; it contains no extra information. There is information that JKR will make known in the future which will not have been included in this book so it is not in any sense a definitive encyclopedia. It also blatantly pre-empts JKR's own encyclopedia, which will contain new information. I am a massive fan of the lexicon, but there really is no need for this book.

However, I don't think JKR has much of a case. All the lexicon is doing is writing about the Harry Potter books. Hundreds of books have been written about the series, so as long as they don't claim to have written the official encyclopedia, there's not much she can do to stop them.

This is the second time a HP fansite has made a shedload of cash from idiotic Potter companion books. In 2007, another popular site, Mugglenet.com, published 'Mugglenet.Com's What Will Happen in Harry Potter 7: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Falls in Love and How Will the Adventure Finally End'. Apart from having the most idiotic title I've ever seen, this was just a collection of theories from Harry Potter 'experts' about what would happen in the final book of the series. For people whose life is basically Harry Potter, the predictions were rubbish: I predicted more things correctly on my own. But my point is that these so-called fans were just jumping on Rowling's bandwagon to make a little profit from her success. It's sickening that such people, celebrities and role models in HP fandom, would do this. The rest of us managed to theorise about book 7 without having to make some dirty money out of it.

And it's not just these two books. What about the films? (a separate article/rant devoted to this may soon follow). The makers of the films are clearly not particularly devoted fans of the book (compare with Peter Jackson and co. with LOTR) - they're just another, albeit larger, money-making scam. Sickening. Please note that although JKR likes the films, she has still said that if she could choose again to sell the rights, she would not sell them.
And the theme park! Don't get me started, what a joke.

The truest fans are those who enjoy the books, even lap them up, read other writings about Harry Potter and enjoy it for what it is, without having to get their little bit of money out of it too.

Stardust

This is not so much a review as just a heaping of praise on the film Stardust.

It came out in the UK in October and I saw the trailer and thought 'that looks quite cool' but then forgot about it. Then in December I happened to have the chance to see it at the cinema. 24 hours later I was there for a second time with my sister and brother. Now all three of us are massive fans. Yesterday I watched it on DVD for the first time, and that prompted me to write this.

If you don't know, the story is set 150 years ago and follows Tristan Thorn (newcomer Charlie Cox) as he seeks to find a fallen star to bring back as a gift for Victoria (Sienna Miller), with whom he is smitten. The star happens to have fallen the other side of the Wall, believed by the locals to be the boundary between England and a fairy-tale kingdom. The star also happens, as Tristan discovers, to actually be a girl, by the name of Yvaine (Claire Danes). Yvaine is also hunted by a witch, Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), who wants the star's heart to restore her beauty and youth, and by the three still-living sons of the late king, who seek the jewell she possesses to claim the throne of stormhold. The film also features Robert De Niro, Ricky Gervais, David Walliams, Peter O'Toole, Ian McKellen, Mark Strong, Rupert Everett and Sarah Alexander, among others!

Stardust is essentially a fairytale, but a sufficiently dark, violent and complicated one to make it a PG. The story is based on a novel by Neil Gaiman and, other than LOTR, is the best plot I have come across in a film. The multiple characters all chasing after the same goal makes it a lively story, but the real genius is in the many little things dropped in at the start which turn out to be highly significant later on. Think JK Rowling on a smaller scale.

The film is also a heck of a lot of fun, both just as an enjoyable watch and with many laugh-out-loud moments. Ricky Gervais, while still acting David Brent, is great, and all the cast perform their roles admirably. Director Matthew Vaughn deliberately tried to make the roles difficult for some of the actors (DeNiro and Pfeiffer especially I suspect) but you wouldn't know it. Everyone fulfills their role well, which in such a big cast is quite something. You can tell they had a really good time making the film.

Visually, it also delivers. I believe it was filmed on the Isle of Skye, so the scenery is great, very LOTR. The effects aren't Matrix-level spectacular, but at least 10 times as good as anything in the Pirates trilogy. The music is good too, with the originial score and songs such as the Can-Can (don't ask, you have to watch it) working well together, and the closing song by Take That is perfectly placed (please note, I am not a Take That fan (!), but Rule The World is a fairly good song and fits amazingly well at the end of the film).

Tellingly, the only award won by Stardust was the Phoenix Film Critics Society award for 'Most Overlooked Film of The Year'! It's a film that scratches in all the right places - a brilliant plot, an abundance of humour, great performances from an all-star cast, beautifully delivered on screen and it also treads a wonderfully fine line between romance and cheese. Although a fantasy film, like LOTR, it's the humanism that makes it so good rather than the world and the effects.

Obviously I'm now going to tell you to get hold of the DVD and watch it, because that's what one does at this point. So go on! If I could recommend only five films to you, Stardust would probably be one of them. It's that good.

Team Speed Connect 4

Think of Connect 4, the game.

Now imagine playing it at speed, where you can play pieces as fast as you like without having to let the loser on the other side have a go. First to four wins. It's about speed, alertness and downright aggression.

Now imagine it as a doubles game. Two players on each side. Each player may use one hand only (the other hand must hold the base of the frame to stop it being knocked over). Each player may only have one piece in his or her hand at a time. You may not move your hand past the centre of the frame.

Four hands fly to the same column at the same time. Or maybe three fight it out while the fourth sneakily slips two quick ones down the far side. Do you work on a single line of four or try to control as many columns as possible? How do you watch four players at once - is it best to concentrate on your own game? Do you block the other team as soon as possible or let them waste time putting three in before stopping them, but run the risk that they make the fourth before you get there?

It has the tactics of chess, the adrenaline of boxing, the beauty of ice dancing, the thrill of poker, the luck factor of chase the ace and the sheer madness of extreme ironing.

The fastest game ever lasted under three seconds. The longest was over twenty, which when playing doubles speed connect 4 is a very long time.

Photo: the reigning undefeated world champions, Ben Jiggins and Nick Purdon

Dwain Chambers

Today the British squad for this years World Indoor Athletics Championships was announced, with Dwain Chambers confirmed in the 100m.
Chambers was once Britains brightest talent in Athletics as the only man to run under 10 seconds for the 100m since Linford Christie. He tested positive for the banned substance THG in 2004 and was banned from athletics for 2 years, before trying and failing in an American Football career. He has recently returned to the sport and won the British trials a few weeks ago, a feat that guarantees him a place in the team (he has now been joined by the selector's choice Simeon Williamson).

While some have accepted that Dwain has earned his place in the team, many are unhappy that a convicted cheat is representing his country. On one hand, he has served his ban and there is nothing in the rules to stop him from competing. On the other, it sends out the message that doping (drugs cheating) isn't that bad and that cheats always get another go.

It reminds me of a situation in football a couple of years ago. Liverpool, my team, finished 5th in the Premier League in 2005, not high enough to win a place in the Champion's League the following season. However, they also won the Champion's League in 2005 and it was thought that for them to not have the chance to defend it would be crazy. Although the rules at the time said they should not compete in the 05-06 season, a special case was made and they got a place in the first qualifying round (two rounds earlier than they would have otherwise entered the competition).

It's common sense versus the rulebook. The rulebook says Dwain Chambers is free to compete. Common sense says that 2 years is far too lenient a ban in such a drug-plagued sport, and that to send an athlete who claims that the only way to win nowadays is with drugs. In addition, Chambers received a lifetime Olympic ban for his offence, so is it really sensible to send someone to the World Indoors who cannot compete in Beijing in August, when there are plenty of young athletes who could use the experience ahead of the Olympics?
But he won the trials, so he is on his way to Valencia next week.

My question is, if common sense prevailed over the rulebook for Liverpool in 2005, why not this time in 2008 in athletics? I expect it may be because athletics has enough bad press already, both due to drugs and the general underperforming of recent British teams, and if the selectors overlook Chambers he is likely to appeal and win. He is also probably our best medal hope for the men, and medals are crucial for national athletics morale ahead of the last Olympics before London 2012.

Strangeday - Please Intervene

Strangeday have the privilege of being the subject of my first post here.
Strangeday are a band that I first saw in the summer of 2004 (I think) at a Chrsitian music festival in Milton Keynes called H3. Steve were headlining the weekend and most of the other acts were being watched in a politely interested kind of way without any audiences getting too excited. Then these four young men got on stage and started playing and ten minutes later the area was packed with people. The band was met with huge approval, and arguably stole the show from Steve. At this time they had 2 EPs recorded, and I bought both immediately.
I've listened to Strangeday's music regularly since then, until last autumn I heard they had recorded a full-length album entitled Please Intervene. I had to hear it!

Strangeday are Toby (vocals, guitar), Aaron (guitar, vocals), Ally (bass) and Paul (drums). They play what they call 'smackface rock'. I have no idea what this means, but it's flippin' brilliant.
It's hard to compare the sound to anything mainstream; Greenday might come the closest. It's generally very guitar driven but the bass and drums are by no means just a rhythm section. They're not a band who you would say play a huge variety of music but, like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, this doesn't matter, because it's just great to listen to. On the heavier side of Indie, it would be easy to just crunch out quality riffs and cool bass lines, but song after song the melodies and the sheer energy steal the show and keep you listening repeatedly. One thing you can say is that they have talent, but instrumentally and in terms of song-writing.

The guys are all Christians and the lyrics reflects this brilliantly but very subtly. If I didn't know about their beliefs I doubt I'd pick them up from the music, but given that I know, the songs make a lot of sense. Like U2 really, but more subtle. The songs are mostly about living as Christians day-to-day, often focusing on the hard stuff - if I had to sum up the album in a word I couldn't, but in two words I'd say 'integrity' and 'struggle'. The lyrics are very honest so it doesn't get depressing to listen to but actually is quite inspirational.

I realise I've compared these guys to Greenday, the Chilis and U2, arguably 3 of the biggest 5 bands in the world (maybe with Foo Fighters and Coldplay?). Personally I think they could hold their own with this lot. For a debut album, Please Intervene is very impressive in its maturity. And the EPs, 'Blink and Miss It' and 'Before You Go', are just as good.
they've been together for at least 5 years now which makes me think they aren't going to make it big, but maybe that's not always a bad thing.

To have a listen to Strangeday, go to http://www.myspace.com/makerocknotwar
There are a few songs on there, though sadly not many of their very best. The pick of the bunch is Fogpilot, one of my favourite songs ever.
They also have a few videos on YouTube, just search for Strangeday.