Rowling Returns to Twitter – Maybe?

There are two re-tweets this morning and a pinned note that links to Rowling’s website and her answers on the linked to page to frequently asked questions about writing. This is the first activity since 12 January, a silence of just over two months. The page header and cameo remain the same pictures that went up on 7 January.

Three notes:

(1) Is she still alive? Maybe. Maybe Not. The pinned link from 7 January is generic though written in her voice and is not new. The two re-tweets tell us nothing except that someone has the password and access to her Twitter account. I’ll feel confident she is among the visibly living when we have a confirmed sighting or post in her inimitable voice. Or just some explanation of where she has been? 14.6 million followers want to know.

(2) Ironic Re-tweet. Rowling re-tweets a comment from Oz Katerji who calls out YouTube for not sufficiently purifying its platform in the name of combatting “f-ing Nazis.” Americans differ from Brits, of course, in our conviction that silencing free speech even of deplorables and terrorists is one of the telling symptoms of fascism. Still, not a proof that Rowling is back and well. Everyone is reeling from the Christchurch murders.

(3) Signature Re-tweet. The other re-tweet is a call for the Daily Mail  to pull a murder video off its website because it represents “a new low in clickbait.” Now that sounds like a particularly Rowling-esque concern, i.e., disdain for the insensitivities of the news media in the name of profit and gaining readers. Of course, throwing the f-bomb and calling people whom she despises “Nazis” is something she has done, too. Maybe she really is back!

If true, so much for the idea that she had decided in the New Year not to be a Progressive Firebrand and Lightning Rod on her twitter feed. We’ll know for sure she’s back, though, and given up on this resolution only when or if she returns to the Brexit Follies currently running on the UK political stage without intermissions or restroom breaks. Today’s reappearance may be only an understandable outburst from her hermitage consequent to the tragedy in New Zealand.

Investigating ‘Crimes of Grindelwald’: Reading, Writing, Rowling Episode #20

 

Straight from the MuggleNet page announcing the release of the Reading, Writing, Rowling podcast on Crimes of Grindelwald! Read all about it — then tune in for some cutting edge conversation about the second Beasts film.

This month, join us at alchemist Nicolas Flamel’s house, where we’re searching for answers to the profound questions raised by the second film in the Fantastic Beasts series. Spoilers abound!

Crimes of Grindelwald, the second movie in the Fantastic Beasts film series, left a lot of fans and critics scratching their heads. With our guests Elizabeth Baird Hardy (Mayland Community College), Megan Kelly (SpeakBeasty), and Lana Whited (Ferrum College), Katy and John investigate the mythic, literary, and alchemical references in this movie to answer key questions and decipher where the series may be headed next.

Elizabeth points out that Newt’s case – which is bigger on the inside than the outside – is our first clue that this series contains much more than it appears to on the surface. Megan also reminds us that these films give us the opportunity to revisit the “Harry Potter glory days,” when we were waiting for the next installments and weren’t sure what would ultimately happen; we have the excitement of looking for clues to help us predict the series’ trajectory.

We consider the criticisms of the film: in theme, plot, and character. Is this film true to J.K. Rowling’s artistic vision? Fans are frustrated with the way the series retcons certain characters and even undermines the original wizarding world vision from the Harry Potterstories. Despite the flaws (which Elizabeth likens to poisonous fangs) in this beast of a movie, there are important and meaningful ideas that enrich our view of the wizarding universe.

More after the jump!

Lana explains her groundbreaking theory about Grindelwald as a dragon (compared to Dumbledore’s phoenix), the literary and historical tradition of dragons and phoenixes, and what this hidden aspect of Grindelwald may mean for the next episodes in the series. We reflect on the meaning of Dumbledore’s Mirror of Erised scene, specific beasts like the Kelpie and Pickett the Bowtruckle, Dumbledore’s Chocolate Frog card (and the twelve uses of dragon’s blood), Nagini the Maledictus, “Aurelius” Dumbledore, and Rowling’s views of the beastly potential of humanity. We also explore the movie’s alchemical symbolism (water, fire, gold, and Flamel’s role in the film’s climax), ties to King Arthur, humoral theory, and Shakespearean pairings.

Hear what we think about major puzzles: What do we know about the deleted scenes and how they affected both Leta’s and Nagini’s character arcs? What is going on with Queenie? Why is Newt so important to Dumbledore’s mission? Where and when will the next film be set? J.K. Rowling has said that the end of the movie is not all that it seems, and we explore the narrative misdirection at the film’s conclusion. A treasure trove of provocative theories awaits you in this episode!

Please also join the conversation via email (ReadingWritingRowling@gmail.com), Twitter (ReadWriteRowl), or our Facebook page! We’d love to hear from you.

Or share your thoughts here by clicking on the ‘Reply’ button up by the post headline! Join in the conversation and let us know what you think about Crimes of Grindelwald.

Luna Lovegood Interviews Beasts Cast

Note three points especially:

(1) Jacob’s destiny to become a Wizard or Elder Wand master is revealed, almost;

(2) Jude Law agrees with Lana Whited about Dumbledore’s self-understanding being that he is a Fantastic Beast in need of careful training and restriction; and

(3) Theseus and Leta… What a shame that their story was not shared in the film released as it was written and filmed! Double for the Theseus-Newt relationship scenes.

Bravo to Ivanna Lynch for asking the best questions to the players to date.

Psychology

This is a placeholder post to be added to the Pillar Post ‘Keys for Interpretation.’

More anon! Thank you for your patience with this project.

 

“Paul is Dead” — Where is J K Rowling?

Those of us of a certain age (“very old”) remember the rumors that shook the US and the UK about the supposed death of Paul McCartney, then of The Beatles, in 1969. ‘Paul is Dead’ became more than a meme, believe me, and I was only slightly surprised that the story survives today as a conspiracy theory. “Only Ringo survives…” (I am increasingly prone, by the way, to believe anything tagged a “conspiracy theory,” the latest Orwellian phrase to enforce a self-inflicted conformity to media orthodoxy.)

I bring this up because J. K. Rowling last tweeted on 12 January 2019. Before her departure, she had been twittering so often that she had become the butt of jokes online. News stories last week about the split in the Labour Party included references to her because one of the meetings of the conspirators (!) was held in the office of Tony, um, Neil Blair, her literary and movie agent cum legal gopher. One article said she was not present, another piece, citing the original as its source, said she was. I have been unable to find any references to her existence or evidence that she is still among the corporeal living dated post that last tweet in January.

I learned today both that the ‘Paul is Dead’ fake-news meme of fifty years ago (1) was started by a college newspaper reporter in Ames, Iowa, and (2) it’s rapid spread into all corners of the globe resulted in LIFE magazine hunting down McCartney at his farm in Scotland and coercing him into some pictures and a brief interview (actually, Sir Paul flew into a rage, dumped a bucket of water over photographer and reporter, and he only agreed to congenial pictures and a comment in exchange for the roll of film with pictures capturing him as an ogre). Hence this post.

We have speculated that Rowling is on vacation, that she is re-writing Fantastic Beasts 3, that she has retired from public life and political commentary, even that she is working on the fifth Cormoran Strike novel (one can only hope). All this is to neglect the obvious possibilities we would suspect if one of our friends or family members disappeared suddenly and for weeks on end — that she is very ill, that she is dead, or that one of her family members is in crisis of some kind and she neglects public comment because her priorities are right-side up (which ordered considerations do not include sharing with us what is no one’s business but her own…).

Let the rumors begin, however, a la the Drake College newspaper report in 1969 that Paul McCartney was no more. Here’s the version I send out for Aeolus and the internet to spread to the global four corners (Tasmania!) in the virtual winds, call it ‘The Three Blairs’: [Read more…]