You want to make Dumbledore gay or marry Neville off? Fine, do it in the books. But outside of them, your opinion on backstories and future histories are just that; opinions.
Usually when authors or screenwriters are asked questions about characters, they reply "He probably..." or "She maybe". Giving a definitive answer isn't fair.
I had similar issues when Ridley Scott decided to "resolve" the "Is Deckard a replicant?" debate, and I'm not even a fan of Blade Runner.
> You want to make Dumbledore gay or marry Neville off? Fine, do it in the books. But outside of them, your opinion on backstories and future histories are just that; opinions.
But that's the problem, isn't it? If they WERE just opinions, nobody would be fussed. It's because those opinions can't help but feel definitive that's upsetting people.
I dunno. For me it's like bad sequels that ask you to reconsider 'acts' in the originals, or that break up characters you thought would live happily ever after. It's endorsed extension affecting the thing you liked in the first place.
Thing is, I've never found those to be a problem. I don't find that and sequels kill the original films for me, for example. But, given how people react to sequels and remakes, I may be alone.
Depends for me, if this is how the characters were down initially in her head when she wrote them then I think it's a valid POV. But if it's an addition to the mythos just for the sake of it then I don't really see the point.
It is. But it's the fact that it's being delivered as "definitive" that's the problem. This is a very unprofessional thing for an author to do, especially when you consider that it was done outside of the medium altogether.
The magnificent thing about a novel is that you have as much (or as little) room to convey everything you feel the need to convey. It shrinks or grows according to its own content. That's exponentially true in the case of a series.
For her to wait until now to offer up a big "reveal" after the fact, and, apparently, without any contextual evidence in the novels, is more than just a little cheap.
Be fair. The only reason why this is in the news was because a Harry Potter fan asked "Did Dumbledore ever find true love?" at a question-answer session. She answered honestly, and it was in the news the next day. To imply Rowling said directly to journalists "Hey, guess what? DUMBLEDORE'S GAY!!!" is completely dishonest and seems like a case of sour grapes to me.
She wrote the books, she created the characters, she has all their details/backstories/futures written down. This gives her the right to give definitive answers to questions like this IMO. Especially when she's going on book tours and answering questions from fans who want to know more. I'm sure she'd never make a throwaway comment about a character. These details have no place in the books (though she may yet release an encyclopedia for the series) but why should she deny the fans the extra information?
I like that the simple fact of her revealing that Dumbledore is gay is enough to bring some idiotic people's worlds crashing down. You can just see the homophobes and the ultra-conservatives all lining up to have a pop. He's gay. And? Half of these homophobes are repressed homosexuals anyway (in my view, homophobia is more like a fear of yourself BEING gay rather than a fear OF gay people!). Anyone who thinks this has 'ruined' the series for them deserves to have it ruined. Anyone who thinks she shouldn't have revealed it is either idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic, take your pick.
>Anyone who thinks she shouldn't have revealed it is either idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic, take your pick.
I'll think I'll plump for "jealous". How can anyone not be jealous of someone who has made £545 million out of telling, essentially, the same story seven times over?
Anyone, my problem isn't that "Dumbledore is gay!!", it's just her revealing it outside of the books. It doesn't really change my reading of the books, it's just a lousy thing to do.
>It doesn't really change my reading of the books, it's just a lousy thing to do.
Right, and it's also just not the way writing behaves. It isn't the way it's done and it's not a way that it *can* be done. You can't insist that a reader take on any details that are not included in the book. It's cheap, it's frustrating, and it's a complete cheat against somebody who has willingly devoted many hours to experiencing your craft first-hand. If there was no room for it in the book (as monkey claims) then there's no need for it either.
A novel (in this case a series of novels) is a complete encapsulated history. The same thing happens with films. There's a reason the greatest authors (of our time and historically) never did tours like this, and there's a reason a lot of great film-makers refuse interviews. People, a lot of the time, interpret it as stubbornness or disinterest, when really they're being true to the piece by allowing people to experience it on their own, without providing any absolute answer that will stymie the audience's half of the creative experience.
But this instance is entirely different. The fans want to know these things. Some fans anyway, kids especially I would say. Please note, she didn't just come out and say 'by the way, Dumbledore's gay, tada!' she answered a question from a young girl. It says she asked whether Dumbledore had ever been in love. Rowling said that yes he had been in love with Grindelwald. This is relevant to the story, she didn't just randomly decide he was gay. In the book it's just said that he was infatuated with him. For her to say that he was actually in love with him as well makes it more interesting, but it's obviously something that she couldn't put in the book. I would guess that she might have wanted to but was advised against it by the publishers/editors.
When she was asked that question, for her not to answer it truthfully would be going against everything she was done with the series. It's only because she said he was gay that anyone cares about this extra info. If she said he liked to go bowling at weekends (although maybe that's a euphemism for picking up boys...) no-one would have given a shit.
>I would guess that she might have wanted to but was advised against it by the publishers/editors.
If Rowling wanted to spend 8 chapters talking about Ron's ginger pubes, her publishers would have let her.
>It says she asked whether Dumbledore had ever been in love
To which she could have replied "the clues are there" (which they're not really, which is part of the point) or "I'd like to think so, although it's not really relevant to the storyline so I never bothered putting it in any of the books.".
>It's only because she said he was gay that anyone cares about this extra info.
The sexuality thing is why the media have leapt on it, sure...but it's not the reason why a lot of people are annoyed with it. Characters being revealed as gay isn't a big deal (Willow in Buffy being a case in point) but when it's revealed in the work itself.; not by the author outside of it.
>If Rowling wanted to spend 8 chapters talking about Ron's ginger pubes, her publishers would have let her.
Exactly.
>she could have replied "the clues are there" (which they're not really, which is part of the point)
Exactly.
>it's not the reason why a lot of people are annoyed with it.
EXACTLY.
Monkey, my darling, I have the nagging feeling you didn't actually read the article that spurred this discussion on. Which is okay, if you decide not to, but I think it's very clear that it's written and presented by somebody who is neither idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic. It's written from the perspective of someone who has a genuine respect for her writings and the world she created who is miffed at the fact that his own interpretations of the character have now been rendered pointless.
Dismissing all opposing view as "idiotic, jealous or homophobic" is missing the point by quite a long ways, and with the exception of your third option I don't see how it relates to this topic at all.
> It's written from the perspective of someone who has a genuine respect for her writings and the world she created who is miffed at the fact that his own interpretations of the character have now been rendered pointless.
If they respected her writings they would accept this. Yeah we all have our own visions of the characters but in the end they ARE her's to do with how she likes. If Doug mentioned something about a Dwarf character we would accept it because with Rob he created those characters. If it wasn't for them the characters wouldn't exist. If it wasn't for Rowling Harry Potter wouldn't exist (unless you believe the funny theories that she is just a figurehead of a team of writers similar to how Shakespeare was)
I think it's quite fitting that in Deathly Hallows the integrity of Dumbledore's character is questioned over and over again. Suddenly he isn't the generic grey-bearded wise, kind old man but a flawed individual who's lust for power and recognition at a young age (and now we know this included his lust for Gellert Grindelwald) resulted in the death of his sister (possibly by his own hand - Dumbledore never revealed whether he knew if it was himself, Aberforth or Grindelwald who actually dealt the death blow to his sister) and the breaking up of his family. Surely this does more to affect the general perception of his character than the fact that he's gay.
Interestingly enough, the other thing she more or less confirmed at that reading was that Aberforth really did 'do things' with goats, but she couldn't explore this avenue any further due to kids being present! No-one gives a fuck that one of her characters 'abused' animals but everyone gives a fuck that Dumbledore's gay.
>If Doug mentioned something about a Dwarf character we would accept it
Really? That must be why nobody was bothered by the fact that Lister was his own father but still lusts for Kochanski, or that she was brought back from a parallel dimension, or that Kryten became a blubbering wiener whenever she was around, or that Hollister was really Dennis the Donut Boy, or that Rimmer was only a failure because he didn't get a brain implant.
Of course, all of those things were done "in medium," which is why we do our best to fit them in line with what we already think of the character, but it still works against the point you're making.
Imagine the backlash if someone asked him in an interview why Rimmer was such an insufferable prat and he responded definitively by saying, "Oh, he didn't get a mind implant like his brothers. Next question."
Tell me that wouldn't sound the least bit cheap. Tell me there wouldn't also be a faction of the fans of the universe HE created that would be more than a little unsatisfied by that.
>No-one gives a fuck that one of her characters 'abused' animals but everyone gives a fuck that Dumbledore's gay.
Yes, because [sigh] one was written in the medium, one wasn't.
BTW, did you know that Hermione was raped by Viktor Krum during the events of Goblet of Fire? No?, well that's true in my opinion. It's not mentioned in the books, mind, but since these characters now belong to the public, I can believe whatever I want.
No one will take a blind bit of notice...but they would if Rowling said it. And THAT's the problem. Stick Dumbledore's sexuality in an encyclopedia or mention it in an 8th book and I'd have no problem, but outside of the medium, her opinion shouldn't matter any more than anyone else's. The problem is that, because she came up with the character and has a shedload of money, her opinion seems to matter more and it can make the papers.
---
> Consider what outing Dumbledore after the book series ended implies. There are undoubtedly millions of children in this country whose parents oppose equality for homosexuals. Many of those children now have all seven books lined up on their bedroom shelves, and they may own several HP franchise products, including DVDs. They adore this series. For many the books are probably their favorite cultural artifact in the world. Now picture what would happen if those ultra-conservative parents march in and declare that everything Potter is going in the garbage because it’s immoral, pro-gay propaganda—or less pleasant terms to that effect.
> I can imagine three basic reactions.
> One, the child will respond, yes, take these terrible books away, they’re bad for me. Ned Flanders’ sons would say that. Maybe a few others would. Such kids are already indoctrinated, and we will just have to hope that they leave home someday and discover more enlightened views.
---
The other two possibilities are a bit too lengthy for me to add to this post. Go and read it. :-)
I love how retarded (yes, retarded) America is over homosexuality. It's yet more of the lording it 'we're better than everybody else' mentality. They treat homosexuality like a belief system. 'Oh, I don't believe in that.' But you still have feelings for men and that's why you haven't touched your wife for twenty years. The closet door is open, get the fuck out before you end up in Narnia or someplace sucking the cock of a faun.
> BTW, did you know that Hermione was raped by Viktor Krum during the events of Goblet of Fire? No?, well that's true in my opinion. It's not mentioned in the books, mind, but since these characters now belong to the public, I can believe whatever I want.
If you want to believe a 14-year-old girl was raped by an older boy, feel free. By all means write a fan fic about it.
Well, Dumbledore does wear a big dress and have a ponytail.
By Michael Lacey
October 26, 2007 @ 4:15 am
reply / #
I completely agree with that.
You want to make Dumbledore gay or marry Neville off? Fine, do it in the books. But outside of them, your opinion on backstories and future histories are just that; opinions.
Usually when authors or screenwriters are asked questions about characters, they reply "He probably..." or "She maybe". Giving a definitive answer isn't fair.
I had similar issues when Ridley Scott decided to "resolve" the "Is Deckard a replicant?" debate, and I'm not even a fan of Blade Runner.
By Pete Martin
October 26, 2007 @ 1:11 pm
reply / #
> You want to make Dumbledore gay or marry Neville off? Fine, do it in the books. But outside of them, your opinion on backstories and future histories are just that; opinions.
But that's the problem, isn't it? If they WERE just opinions, nobody would be fussed. It's because those opinions can't help but feel definitive that's upsetting people.
I dunno. For me it's like bad sequels that ask you to reconsider 'acts' in the originals, or that break up characters you thought would live happily ever after. It's endorsed extension affecting the thing you liked in the first place.
Thing is, I've never found those to be a problem. I don't find that and sequels kill the original films for me, for example. But, given how people react to sequels and remakes, I may be alone.
By Andrew
October 26, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
reply / #
Depends for me, if this is how the characters were down initially in her head when she wrote them then I think it's a valid POV. But if it's an addition to the mythos just for the sake of it then I don't really see the point.
By Daff
October 26, 2007 @ 5:55 pm
reply / #
>it's a valid POV.
It is. But it's the fact that it's being delivered as "definitive" that's the problem. This is a very unprofessional thing for an author to do, especially when you consider that it was done outside of the medium altogether.
The magnificent thing about a novel is that you have as much (or as little) room to convey everything you feel the need to convey. It shrinks or grows according to its own content. That's exponentially true in the case of a series.
For her to wait until now to offer up a big "reveal" after the fact, and, apparently, without any contextual evidence in the novels, is more than just a little cheap.
By Miguel Sanchez
October 26, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
reply / #
Be fair. The only reason why this is in the news was because a Harry Potter fan asked "Did Dumbledore ever find true love?" at a question-answer session. She answered honestly, and it was in the news the next day. To imply Rowling said directly to journalists "Hey, guess what? DUMBLEDORE'S GAY!!!" is completely dishonest and seems like a case of sour grapes to me.
By Antipodean
October 27, 2007 @ 8:50 am
reply / #
>To imply Rowling said directly to journalists
Did I do that?
By Miguel Sanchez
October 27, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
reply / #
> Giving a definitive answer isn't fair.
She wrote the books, she created the characters, she has all their details/backstories/futures written down. This gives her the right to give definitive answers to questions like this IMO. Especially when she's going on book tours and answering questions from fans who want to know more. I'm sure she'd never make a throwaway comment about a character. These details have no place in the books (though she may yet release an encyclopedia for the series) but why should she deny the fans the extra information?
I like that the simple fact of her revealing that Dumbledore is gay is enough to bring some idiotic people's worlds crashing down. You can just see the homophobes and the ultra-conservatives all lining up to have a pop. He's gay. And? Half of these homophobes are repressed homosexuals anyway (in my view, homophobia is more like a fear of yourself BEING gay rather than a fear OF gay people!). Anyone who thinks this has 'ruined' the series for them deserves to have it ruined. Anyone who thinks she shouldn't have revealed it is either idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic, take your pick.
By performingmonkey
October 29, 2007 @ 4:06 am
reply / #
I'm all three!
Not really, you're just massively wrong - AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111
By Michael Lacey
October 29, 2007 @ 5:02 am
reply / #
>Anyone who thinks she shouldn't have revealed it is either idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic, take your pick.
I'll think I'll plump for "jealous". How can anyone not be jealous of someone who has made £545 million out of telling, essentially, the same story seven times over?
Anyone, my problem isn't that "Dumbledore is gay!!", it's just her revealing it outside of the books. It doesn't really change my reading of the books, it's just a lousy thing to do.
By Pete Martin
October 29, 2007 @ 9:26 am
reply / #
>It doesn't really change my reading of the books, it's just a lousy thing to do.
Right, and it's also just not the way writing behaves. It isn't the way it's done and it's not a way that it *can* be done. You can't insist that a reader take on any details that are not included in the book. It's cheap, it's frustrating, and it's a complete cheat against somebody who has willingly devoted many hours to experiencing your craft first-hand. If there was no room for it in the book (as monkey claims) then there's no need for it either.
A novel (in this case a series of novels) is a complete encapsulated history. The same thing happens with films. There's a reason the greatest authors (of our time and historically) never did tours like this, and there's a reason a lot of great film-makers refuse interviews. People, a lot of the time, interpret it as stubbornness or disinterest, when really they're being true to the piece by allowing people to experience it on their own, without providing any absolute answer that will stymie the audience's half of the creative experience.
By Miguel Sanchez
October 29, 2007 @ 11:58 am
reply / #
But this instance is entirely different. The fans want to know these things. Some fans anyway, kids especially I would say. Please note, she didn't just come out and say 'by the way, Dumbledore's gay, tada!' she answered a question from a young girl. It says she asked whether Dumbledore had ever been in love. Rowling said that yes he had been in love with Grindelwald. This is relevant to the story, she didn't just randomly decide he was gay. In the book it's just said that he was infatuated with him. For her to say that he was actually in love with him as well makes it more interesting, but it's obviously something that she couldn't put in the book. I would guess that she might have wanted to but was advised against it by the publishers/editors.
When she was asked that question, for her not to answer it truthfully would be going against everything she was done with the series. It's only because she said he was gay that anyone cares about this extra info. If she said he liked to go bowling at weekends (although maybe that's a euphemism for picking up boys...) no-one would have given a shit.
By performingmonkey
October 30, 2007 @ 3:18 am
reply / #
>I would guess that she might have wanted to but was advised against it by the publishers/editors.
If Rowling wanted to spend 8 chapters talking about Ron's ginger pubes, her publishers would have let her.
>It says she asked whether Dumbledore had ever been in love
To which she could have replied "the clues are there" (which they're not really, which is part of the point) or "I'd like to think so, although it's not really relevant to the storyline so I never bothered putting it in any of the books.".
>It's only because she said he was gay that anyone cares about this extra info.
The sexuality thing is why the media have leapt on it, sure...but it's not the reason why a lot of people are annoyed with it. Characters being revealed as gay isn't a big deal (Willow in Buffy being a case in point) but when it's revealed in the work itself.; not by the author outside of it.
By Pete Martin
October 30, 2007 @ 9:28 am
reply / #
>If Rowling wanted to spend 8 chapters talking about Ron's ginger pubes, her publishers would have let her.
Exactly.
>she could have replied "the clues are there" (which they're not really, which is part of the point)
Exactly.
>it's not the reason why a lot of people are annoyed with it.
EXACTLY.
Monkey, my darling, I have the nagging feeling you didn't actually read the article that spurred this discussion on. Which is okay, if you decide not to, but I think it's very clear that it's written and presented by somebody who is neither idiotic, jealous (of her success), homophobic. It's written from the perspective of someone who has a genuine respect for her writings and the world she created who is miffed at the fact that his own interpretations of the character have now been rendered pointless.
Dismissing all opposing view as "idiotic, jealous or homophobic" is missing the point by quite a long ways, and with the exception of your third option I don't see how it relates to this topic at all.
By Miguel Sanchez
October 30, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
reply / #
> It's written from the perspective of someone who has a genuine respect for her writings and the world she created who is miffed at the fact that his own interpretations of the character have now been rendered pointless.
If they respected her writings they would accept this. Yeah we all have our own visions of the characters but in the end they ARE her's to do with how she likes. If Doug mentioned something about a Dwarf character we would accept it because with Rob he created those characters. If it wasn't for them the characters wouldn't exist. If it wasn't for Rowling Harry Potter wouldn't exist (unless you believe the funny theories that she is just a figurehead of a team of writers similar to how Shakespeare was)
I think it's quite fitting that in Deathly Hallows the integrity of Dumbledore's character is questioned over and over again. Suddenly he isn't the generic grey-bearded wise, kind old man but a flawed individual who's lust for power and recognition at a young age (and now we know this included his lust for Gellert Grindelwald) resulted in the death of his sister (possibly by his own hand - Dumbledore never revealed whether he knew if it was himself, Aberforth or Grindelwald who actually dealt the death blow to his sister) and the breaking up of his family. Surely this does more to affect the general perception of his character than the fact that he's gay.
Interestingly enough, the other thing she more or less confirmed at that reading was that Aberforth really did 'do things' with goats, but she couldn't explore this avenue any further due to kids being present! No-one gives a fuck that one of her characters 'abused' animals but everyone gives a fuck that Dumbledore's gay.
By performingmonkey
October 31, 2007 @ 2:47 am
reply / #
>If they respected her writings they would accept this.
Um...no. "Respecting somebody's writings" and "being bullied into accepting the author's personal interpretation" are two hugely different things.
By Miguel Sanchez
October 31, 2007 @ 11:54 am
reply / #
>If Doug mentioned something about a Dwarf character we would accept it
Really? That must be why nobody was bothered by the fact that Lister was his own father but still lusts for Kochanski, or that she was brought back from a parallel dimension, or that Kryten became a blubbering wiener whenever she was around, or that Hollister was really Dennis the Donut Boy, or that Rimmer was only a failure because he didn't get a brain implant.
Of course, all of those things were done "in medium," which is why we do our best to fit them in line with what we already think of the character, but it still works against the point you're making.
Imagine the backlash if someone asked him in an interview why Rimmer was such an insufferable prat and he responded definitively by saying, "Oh, he didn't get a mind implant like his brothers. Next question."
Tell me that wouldn't sound the least bit cheap. Tell me there wouldn't also be a faction of the fans of the universe HE created that would be more than a little unsatisfied by that.
By Miguel Sanchez
October 31, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
reply / #
>No-one gives a fuck that one of her characters 'abused' animals but everyone gives a fuck that Dumbledore's gay.
Yes, because [sigh] one was written in the medium, one wasn't.
BTW, did you know that Hermione was raped by Viktor Krum during the events of Goblet of Fire? No?, well that's true in my opinion. It's not mentioned in the books, mind, but since these characters now belong to the public, I can believe whatever I want.
No one will take a blind bit of notice...but they would if Rowling said it. And THAT's the problem. Stick Dumbledore's sexuality in an encyclopedia or mention it in an 8th book and I'd have no problem, but outside of the medium, her opinion shouldn't matter any more than anyone else's. The problem is that, because she came up with the character and has a shedload of money, her opinion seems to matter more and it can make the papers.
By Pete Martin
October 31, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
reply / #
There's a scarily extensive (but interesting) article about this here:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1446
Lengthy quotation:
---
> Consider what outing Dumbledore after the book series ended implies. There are undoubtedly millions of children in this country whose parents oppose equality for homosexuals. Many of those children now have all seven books lined up on their bedroom shelves, and they may own several HP franchise products, including DVDs. They adore this series. For many the books are probably their favorite cultural artifact in the world. Now picture what would happen if those ultra-conservative parents march in and declare that everything Potter is going in the garbage because it’s immoral, pro-gay propaganda—or less pleasant terms to that effect.
> I can imagine three basic reactions.
> One, the child will respond, yes, take these terrible books away, they’re bad for me. Ned Flanders’ sons would say that. Maybe a few others would. Such kids are already indoctrinated, and we will just have to hope that they leave home someday and discover more enlightened views.
---
The other two possibilities are a bit too lengthy for me to add to this post. Go and read it. :-)
By Nick R
October 31, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
reply / #
I love how retarded (yes, retarded) America is over homosexuality. It's yet more of the lording it 'we're better than everybody else' mentality. They treat homosexuality like a belief system. 'Oh, I don't believe in that.' But you still have feelings for men and that's why you haven't touched your wife for twenty years. The closet door is open, get the fuck out before you end up in Narnia or someplace sucking the cock of a faun.
> BTW, did you know that Hermione was raped by Viktor Krum during the events of Goblet of Fire? No?, well that's true in my opinion. It's not mentioned in the books, mind, but since these characters now belong to the public, I can believe whatever I want.
If you want to believe a 14-year-old girl was raped by an older boy, feel free. By all means write a fan fic about it.
By performingmonkey
November 05, 2007 @ 3:42 am
reply / #