To put, perhaps, a slightly different perspective on Rowlings, her comments on an American student at Hogwarts and the casting of Americans in the movies etc...as an Australian who finds that the exposure of American cultural mediums (with regards to tv, movies and music in particular) occurs at the expense of what I have always considered to be an Australian cultural identity, I have to admit to embracing Rowlings� work largely because it is so British. The lack of the Americanisms in the speech of her characters, for example, results in a refreshingly unique dialogue in the context of modern Australia.

This is not to say that American culture can�t and shouldn�t be embraced in modern Australia. It can, should, is. But equally, I do think that there is a place for a uniquely and yes, even exclusively British cultural expression such as the world JK Rowling created in Harry Potter. And yes, I must also admit to rejoicing in the decision to keep the movies as British as possible through the use of British actors and locations. This is not to claim any one culture as better or worse than another � that is both pointless and ludicrous. There are, however, fundamental differences�

I haven�t explained this as well as I would have liked, and of course I take your point about making the distinction between the author and his/her work, and really, there�s no reason the two must reconcile. I think, too, that I probably missed the crux of what you were trying to say? It�s just that the issue is something I have been chewing over specifically in relation to Harry Potter since I saw the third movie last week!

I take your points, and even agree with them. My problem is not with an all British cast (I can see the rationale behind that) but with the way Rowlings doesn't bother to hide her dislike of people who happen to be American. She's entitled to dislike each and every American, of course, but it's just bad manners to show it so obviously. In my opinion.

Oh, I agree with you on that entirely about manners - and there is also that old addage about not biting the hand that feeds you, so to speak. It's just that she doesn't seem as overtly hostile to me...and that, of course, may well be because I (or rather, my nationality) isn't on the receiving end...?

It could be that her publishers and PR people have told her to tone down her comments -- the examples I have are all a few years old. Or maybe she's come to realize that the (American) hand she's biting has been quite generous to her (to use your phrase, as it is very apt).

I have no idea how she feels about Australians. I would assume she doesn't harbor the same kind of negative feelings -- because I do understand how America gets on the nerves of the rest of the world. I would be the last person to make excuses about the way American culture gets crammed down the throats of everybody everywhere, as it's something I deplore.

There are things I don't like about Great Britain, but it would not occur to me to go to England and voice those things in a very public way. To what end? Thus endeth my rant. And thank you for your very measured and careful response. I appreciate the fact that you raised the points you did.

I have thoroughly enjoyed thinking about this issue, actually, so thanks heaps for the original post. Hopefully I haven't offended anyone greatly - thinking before speaking, not always a strong point of mine! :o)

You didn't offend me. Constructive criticism and thoughtful disagreement never offend me.

I've been thinking about this too, and I realized that what really bothers me is the tone of the whole thing. Rowlings didn't have to make it such a big deal by putting it in her list of demands for the film that no Americans be involved. That could have been done quietly, but instead there was a 'stay out of our clubhouse, you're not welcome' tone to it. A vague bitterness and meanness to the whole thing. I was trying to think how people would react if, in casting an American movie set in the US, it was made public (and in that 'stay out of our clubhouse' tone) that only Americans would be allowed on the set and only Americans could audition. I don't think it would go over well.

You know, I don't know one way or the other if she genuinely hates Americans, or if she just wants to tell a British/European (book 4, anyway) story and not have it overwhelmed by Americans the way a lot of stories are. I can understand not wanting Americans (who are pretty overwhelming) getting cast, because it'd be a big deal. Likewise, throwing a Yank into the mix would kind of be distracting in the books. I don't feel particularly offended by that.

Though I reserve the right to change my mind on that if something comes along proving that she really does hate all Americans regardless of book plot issues.

Though I didn't hear the tone of delivery, I didn't assume a dislike of Americans from Ms. Rowlings comment. She was also on book tour - and might be sick of being asked "when will there be an American student at Hogwarts".

I did wonder overall if she's promoting work for citizens of the USA; even if screenwriter Steve Kloves is from Texas, and as William Goldman suggests in his writing about how films get made, the screenwriter is below the stray cat on the Warner Brothers lot.

As for not planning to have American student characters at Hogwarts in the fiction, by the fourth Harry Potter novel it's clear that each nation in her story world has its own school of wizardry.

I have more to say about Jenny Crusie's work versus her discussion of approaches to writing, but the post didn't delve into that.

Ter, certainly tone can be explained in a number of ways. But I have looked into this and I stand by my interpretation until I come across more data that persuades me otherwise. Also, I'll reiterate: it's fine for her to decide who she wants to be involved, on whatever basis. I just don't appreciate the way she's gone about it.

What did you want to say about Jenny's stuff? I'd be interested.

Thanks for this discussion! It's something that I've also been very much aware of since I first started reading Mark Helprin. I'm so enamoured of his work, but find myself deliberately not reading about him any more than necessary because our politics are so wildly divergent.

It's a fascinating exercise - esp. in the examples you give with Rowling - seperating the work, the creation, from the author, and still hanging on to the story and one's appreciation for it.