Call the Midwife 3.03 and some other things

Once upon a time, Gillian Bradshaw, writer of entertaining and quite popular historical and fantasy novels, both for adults and children, posted on her website re: her novel Wolf Hunt:I've now decided that the heroine marries the wrong man, but I think it still works. (See here.) As far as I know - and of course I could be mistaken - this did not cause much of a stir anywhere, and certainly didn't cause Bradshaw readers to divide into "SHUT UP!" and "YES!" factions. These last few days, even if you haven't read a word of the Harry Potter novels in your life, the news that - in an interview that hasn't even been published yet - J.K. Rowling (towards Emma Watson, who played Hermione in the HP movies) said something along the lines of having paired up Hermione and Ron out of personal wish fulfillment rather than literary necessity reasons and that they probably would need couple therapy in the future was unavoidable, as were the very loud, virtually speaking, internet reactions. Betrayal! Justification! Just shut up already! How dare she say anything, doesn't she know the author is dead! Airing of grievances about all the other things in the Potter novels reader X doesn't agree with! 'Twas the Potterdämmerung all over again, and I hadn't missed it one bit.

Seriously though, I don't get the outrage. It's not like the woman is issuing orders on how readers should feel about the characters, relationships etc.; she never did. She simply seems to have changed her own mind about some authorial choices she made, and is neither the first nor the last writer to do so. It happens. (See above.) It doesn't change the novels themselves, and whatever you liked or disliked about them remains. Considering that readers can change their minds about books when rereading them with the distance of years, the idea that authors shouldn't be allowed to, or if they do shouldn't be allowed to say in public strikes me as extremely illogical. (You know, given that Arthur Conan Doyle if his letters are anything to go by developed a strong annoyance/dislike towards Sherlock Holmes, the more popular Holmes got, I can't imagine how dysfunctional the original SH fandom would have been if Doyle had been on twitter. Not to mention the constant cries of betrayal and selling out, given that Doyle when a stage adapter once telegraphed to him whether he could let Holmes get married in a stage adaption telegraphed back "Marry him, kill him, I don't care".) In the case of J.K. Rowling, it's also not like she's constantly talking Potter. I might have missed something, but the few interviews I've seen with her in recent years dealt with either her two adult novels, the Leveson enquiry, the importance of retaining the welfare state in the face of the Tories dismantling it. So the idea of a JKR constantly intruding on her readers is... bizarre? At least to me.

On to the show tirelessly advertising the value of the British National Health Service, now.

( Wouldn't it be loverly? )

Borgen (Season 3)

Overall, I enjoyed it, and liked the way the story wrapped up, but I have some complaints as well. And then there is some stuff I'm torn about. What I really appreciate is that remained from beginning to the end the story of a female politician navigating her way, with the second most important character also a woman, and ethical dilemmas as well as practical maneuvring both in the political and in the media world (which was frequently entwined) often explored. It didn't suddenly let all of Birgitte's scenes be about her love life (though she had one), and it kept a good balance between idealism and cynicism, imo.

( Now, on to spoilery details )

In conclusion: a smart political show with great characters, ending in style, even if not every step on the way made me happy. I'm glad I watched!