Rowling, and what's not to like
This is my favorite bit:
"I've since heard that Harold Bloom, that learned old gasbag and self-designated arbiter of all written words, despises the book and has said so at least once every six months for the past five years. Well, alas, Bloom, my good man-- leave aside the sorry spectacle of the world's most famous literary critic spending some of his dwindling energies trying to squash J. K. Rowling like a bug, all because of a series of books whose readership extends to eight-year-olds, for god's sake (would Lionel Trilling have behaved this way with A Wrinkle in Time, do you think?), and let me put it this way: you style yourself after Falstaff, but you have no sense of humor whatsoever. You never did-- and your Rowling snits seal the deal."The ending is pretty good too:
"I just gotta love Rowling-- she's managed to piss off the insufferable Bloom and the insane fundamentalist right, and she has no patience with Daily Prophet reporters who rely lazily and uncritically on sources like the Malfoys or Ministry of Magic apparatchiks. What's not to like?All of this has reminded me of something: while ideally it's a good idea to keep the author separate from the author's creations, it's not always possible. I can name a couple of authors whose personal politics or behavior I find pretty abominable, but whose books I have either loved or greatly admired. A Soldier of the Great War is one of my favorite ten novels, but it would probably not be a good idea for me to sit down at a table with Mark Helprin, as he spends some of his time writing speeches for people like Reagan and Bush. So I have managed to keep my dislike of Helprin's politics separate from my appreciation of his books. On the other hand, I could never, ever like the man behind the mind that created American Psycho. Just not possible.
Thinking about this, I can come up with every combination of like/dislike. Voila:
. the work the author Harold Bloom -- -- Mark Helprin ++ - John Garner - + JK Rowlings + - Jenny Crusie ++ ++
The first disclaimer here is that I only know one of these people personally, and therefore may be wrong as far as my assessment of how compatable we would be. I can't imagine myself sitting at a cafe table with Bloom, both of us laughing our fool heads off about anything at all. Because Bloom doesn't have a sense of humor, as Bérubé points out so astutely. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe he's a hoot in person, thoughtful and funny and good to talk to even if you can't agree with him on anything at all, ever.
I know that I'd like John Garner on the basis of all the stories I've heard from people who did know him, just the same way I know that I do not like JK Rowlings. Which is where I've been heading with this posting, in case you wondered. Bérubé asked, what's not to like, and I'm going to answer that question.
First I'll give her the praise due: she's got a tremendous imagination and a flare for storytelling. Are the books flawless? Of course not. I can't think of any book that is. But I'm happy to give her full credit for creating a universe that has drawn so many children back to reading stories, and will continue to do so. And still I can't like the woman, because while she's happy to take the money of the millions of Americans who love her stories, she's openly hostile to them at the same time.
A lot of people don't like Americans. I don't much like us myself, a lot of the time. But I would hope that any thinking person would remember that any country is composed of individuals. Some awful, some very good, most of us just trying to get along.
JK Rowling doesn't seem to distinguish between her dislike of the country as a whole and all of us as individuals. Here's one example of her not distinguishing: when my husband and daughter went to hear her read in Vancouver (about five years ago) she told the audience that there would never, ever be an American student at Hogwarts. She said this in a particular tone; I know this, because my daughter, who was ten at the time, asked me why Rowlings didn't like Americans. Then, of course, Rowlings made it a condition of selling the film rights to the books that no Americans be cast, and that no Americans work on the set. In the end, she is reported to have come to terms with the fact that they ended up with an American director, but only reluctantly.
My question is not, why doesn't Rowling like Americans, but, why doesn't she have the good manners to keep her dislike to herself? It's just in bad taste to be openly dismissive of people -- of millions of children -- who have made you very rich, and who adore your work without reservation. Could I be wrong about this? Sure. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I've done some research and the evidence is out there. The bottom line is this: Rowling is entitled not to like Americans, and I'm entitled not to like her. I can still acknowledge her storytelling skills, and she can still take my money. And that, Mr. Bérubé, is what's not to like.