So J.K. Rowling recently revealed that Dumbledore was gay? Fine, good for her. I might not agree with the choice, but she's the author and has full right to take her characters in any direction she likes. I DO disagree, however, with two aspects of the recent shocking revelation.
First, why did she reveal this AFTER all the books were complete? If she really wanted to make a statement for gay rights, if she really wanted to be controversial, why not actually either explicitly mention it in the stories or at least point even moderately to it as part of the character's development? The linked story claims, "...some passages...have taken on a new and clearer meaning." That's true but it is tied to my second disagreement.
Why was this even necessary? Dumbledore is a great character and should be able to stand on his own. His incredible power is always understood, and yet he is a prime example of the old axiom that those with true power almost never have to use it. (Well, he used his power a few times but only when necessary.) His great self-confidence, his intense yet unshakable calm in nearly every situation, his wondrous knowledge made him a character to be admired and loved, regardless of his sexual orientation. This new information about Dumbledore really does nothing to add something refreshing to the character as he was fully developed through the course of the series. For that reason, I would argue that it is an unnecessary political statement on Rowling's part.
So, tie my two disagreements together and here's what you get. I'll give Rowling the benefit of the doubt and mention that she might have wanted to include this information in the series. There are two reasons why she did not, and neither makes her look any good. First, she might not have included it because her publisher pressured her to keep it out (these stories were originally designed for kids, despite their wide following among adults). If she felt strongly enough about it, what should it matter who the intended audience was? Most gay-rights supporters will tell you that we should start paving the way for the idea that homosexuality is OK and acceptable as early as possible. She should've stuck to her guns on it, and so her political statement, though shocking it might still be, comes off much weaker. However, I think the more likely interpretation is much more practical; either Rowling or her publishers (or both) believed that such a revelation in the course of the stories would damage sales, and we can't have that, can we? If this second theory is true, whether she was the driving force or the publisher was, the fact that she acquiesced to this thinking makes her look horrible. This weakens her statement much more than the first theory, in which she at least can claim she didn't wish to offend. If she can so easily be coerced into sacrificing her beliefs for money, what does that say about her and worse, about the characters she has created? I suppose you don't get to being one of the wealthiest women in the world through strong morality.
I really think Rowling damaged herself with this. Perhaps not much (and certainly almost none with her almost rabid fan base), but there it is.
I like eBay because you can find some truly unique things for sale, and also because you can still find good bargains if you look hard enough. It is one of man's best examples of the free market. However, there are some things about eBay that bug me.
First, there's the whole concept of "seller reserve". In short, the reserve is the hidden minimum amount that seller will accept in the auction. If the reserve price is not met, the highest bidder does not win. You see this most commonly in the eBay Motors section (where I spend a lot of my time, dreaming about cool cars I could buy and/or restore). In fact, the reserve is so common that you will often see "LOW RESERVE!!!!" or the like in the summary for the auction itself, so that you aren't scared away by the fact that there's a reserve at all (and many folks are). My question to anyone who thinks the reserve is a good idea is simply this: why bother? You can set a minimum initial bid, so if there's some amount that is your absolute bottom, just set your minimum initial bid to that amount and run with it. At least then, buyers aren't misled into believing they have a shot at something when they really don't. You can sometimes get an idea of what the reserve might be because some sellers will also include the "Buy It Now" feature of an auction in which they'll list a price and if you click and agree to pay, the auction is over, you win, and you just go straight to the deal. However, the use of the reserve leads to some hysterical tableaux, something like this:
1968 Chevy Camaro SS
Current Bid: $2,250.00 (Reserve not met)
But It Now Price: $27,500.00
Hmmmmmmm....what do you think they really want for the car, even if you consider their reserve? $25K? Perhaps a little less? At least I have some idea now, so this isn't totally stupid (even if it's close to it). Even worse is the following:
1968 Chevrolet: Camaro VERY NICE
Current Bid: $15,100.00 (Reserve not met: the seller has lowered the reserve price)
Buy It Now Price: $17,650.00
What do you think his reserve was? $17,650 to start with? Why even bother lowering the reserve in a case like this? Perhaps he lowered it to $17,500.
I understand why some folks think the reserve is necessary. There are lots of jokers on eBay. There are lots of flooded markets (like the classic Camaro market above) on eBay. Some sellers are lazy and haven't done their research, but want to see what folks are willing to pay. Again, however, the above examples demonstrate why trying to be cagey and screw people around is stupid. eBay is a HUGE marketplace and there are lots of people looking at your stuff. Be honest and decent with them and it will work for you. There's a big disconnect between buyers and sellers on eBay: sellers want to maximize profits and I get that, but the typical eBay buyer is a cheapskates looking for bargains, not some guy who's got an unlimited bank account and wants YOUR Camaro and will bid whatever it takes to get it. If you want to use a reserve, fine, but don't set a hidden reserve of $17,500 or $17,000, leave out a Buy It Now price so bidders at least get an idea of what they're looking at, then set the minimum initial bid to $777.00, as the guy in the second example did. You're just being stupid and fooling people into thinking they'll get a steal when they really have no chance to do so. If you're still insistent at this point on jerking bidders around, at least start the bidding at $10K or something realistic.
Second, don't delude yourself about the "value" of your item. Should you get lucky and find that one guy I mentioned above, who's got the bankroll and wants YOUR item, good for you, but in the meantime do a little research and be realistic about what you might get. I'm guessing some folks are hoping to find the sucker who will needlessly overpay (I've seen this happen right before my very eyes, on a trip to a small crafts market in the Yucatan, so I know these people exist). Others might just think that it's so valuable to them or since they don't really want to sell anyway, they'll make someone pay. I don't really know what the motivations might be, but there are a lot of people who seem to think that because they're selling it, it's tripled in price since they bought it. This might sometimes be the case, but do you honestly believe your Grandma's jiggling hula girl doll is worth $500, even if she did get it in Hawaii? It's odd and educational to see the differing concept of "value" that present themselves on eBay.
(OU FOOTBALL DISCLAIMER...BLAH, BLAH, BLAH....)
So OU looked not-so-good Saturday, though it is good to see that they can basically play half a game, spot Iowa State 7 points, and still win by 10. We've seen what this team can do when they're really clicking, so let's hope they get back to that soon. Maybe the extra week before the Texas A&M game on November 3rd in Norman will help them recharge and put themselves back together for the final, critical run to the Big 12 title and (dare we dream) an appearance in New Orleans with a chance for the national championship.
We have learned another very important thing about the Sooners. They will never win an important replay review or challenge. Dating all the way back that fateful last-second "loss" to Texas Tech in 2005, replays and reviews have not been kind to OU. It continued with That Oregon Affair last year, of course, and this past Saturday the Sooners had two or three more plays either challenged or reviewed, and all went against OU. It has become so common for OU to lose challenges, in fact, that Bob Barry and Merv Johnson commented on it during the game every time a review happened. It has become expected. So it appears the Sooners will have to continue making their own luck, because the officials sure aren't going to help them, even by making a mistake in their favor. I guess it goes along with that whole adversity thing that seems to be a recurring theme for the Crimson and Cream the past few years. I'll know that OU is going to win the NC again when we actually start seeing some of those weird bounces and reviewed plays going our way again.
Thanks for reading along. Next post, I'll talk about my past weekend...there's quite a bit to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment