posted
I don't think Tolkien or most LotR readers would agree with you, Hamfast.
quote:However, my problem is that she's kinda just thrown it out there after the books are written and it has no real impact on the story, so it's kind of a case of...why bother? Why not just not mention his sexuality at all?
posted
If it's that easy, then I agree with you, Ney. If she just threw it on as an afterthought, then it was kind of cheesy and unnecessary.
However, there is also the possibility that in JK Rowling's mind, Dumbledore has been gay all along. There has never been any need whatsoever to allude to it in any way in the books (Dumbledore was in no way a sexual character), so perhaps it was always there, but never mentioned.
From: Mishawaka, IN | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's all a plot to stop the death of her precious series. Next, she'll tell us Hagrid is a girl...!
From: Leicester | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apart from all I could think of at that moment when I read the book was:
'Drums, drums in the deep. They are coming!' Or whatever the line is
I think that someone else hit the nail on the head - it does feel a bit as though JK Rowling - despite claiming she was happy to now put HP to one side and start on something new - doesn't want people to stop talking about the books. She wants to keep it going by throwing out more snippets that she thinks will keep people talking.
Part of me can understand why - I mean it's got to be a pretty heady feeling having all the the focus and attention on something you've created - but another part of me thinks - come on, just move on, either that or just write another HP book!
posted
For those who say, "Why didn't JK just come right out and say it, if that's what she was thinking," what are your thoughts on the following passage (from the editorial I posed on the previous page--which I didn't write, of course--but I do find myself agreeing, more and more...):
quote:
As to Dumbledore, it would have been disturbing if Rowling had used her final book to argue for some baldly political agenda -- if the Hogwarts headmaster and professor Snape had married, for example, in a touching civil ceremony. Whatever your view of homosexual rights, this would have been an abuse of parental trust, the exploitation of an unfair advantage. But this is not what happened. Dumbledore's sexual identity was an assumption Rowling brought to her writing, not explicit in the text itself. And the implicit reference is to a tragic, youthful infatuation with an evil character whom Dumbledore is later called upon to defeat in a duel. "I think a child will see a friendship," says Rowling, "and I think a sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation. "
I can't help thinking that people would have been upset if JK had "come right out and said it." So... her idea that Dumbledore was gay didn't necessarily "add" to the plot of the books--but, knowing that certainly does add to understanding the character of the wizard, no? Aren't certain passages made more meaningful and significant? Should it have been manditory for her to reveal it? Why is it OK for her to not have identified every other character's sexual orientation, throughout the course of the text? Could it be that we are more comfortable assuming that everyone we encounter is straight (in this case, even a fictional--though meticulously realized--world)?
I also have to wonder... do we focus more on homosexuals' SEXuality? For some reason, we hear "gay" and we think "sex." When we think of Harry Potter and Cho, or Ron and Hermoine, or Hagrid and that Giantess chick from the other school--do we automatically jump to that SEXual extreme? Again, why is it that she was never required to say any of the above individuals are, in fact, straight? Why is it that people automatically jump to Dumbledore's SEXuality? It seems to me that Rowling focuses more on a love that he lost... and never delves into the bedroom ramifications that perhaps some are angry at her for suggesting...
Of course, I admit that my own orientation may alter my own ability to be biased in this whole situation...
D
From: Utah | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I also have to wonder... do we focus more on homosexuals' SEXuality? For some reason, we hear "gay" and we think "sex." ... Why is it that people automatically jump to Dumbledore's SEXuality?
I haven't seen anything in this thread or any of the linked articles that would imply this is the case. I understand that can be a common mistake for people to make in talking about homosexuality, but I haven't seen it come up this discussion. And speaking personally, that wasn't the first thing that jumped to my mind when I heard about Rowling's statement.
quote:When we think of Harry Potter and Cho, or Ron and Hermoine, or Hagrid and that Giantess chick from the other school--do we automatically jump to that SEXual extreme? Again, why is it that she was never required to say any of the above individuals are, in fact, straight?
She didn't have to state it because she made it very obvious by the way they interacted with each other, and she very clearly described their feelings for each other. Seems simple enough to me.
Just a few short thoughts.
[ 10-31-2007, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: Gandalf the White ]
From: Georgia, USA | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I haven't seen anything in this thread or any of the linked articles that would imply this is the case. I understand that can be a common mistake for people to make in talking about homosexuality, but I haven't seen it come up this discussion. And speaking personally, that wasn't the first thing that jumped to my mind when I heard about Rowling's statement.
The reactions I am referring to are those expressing a level of "ewww"-factor of thinking of Dumbledore (and/or other 'elderly peole') in bed--without feeling the need to critically call anyone on the carpet, some have been in this thread, others are reactions I have heard offsite (both in cyberspace and in real life). I am glad that wasn't your own first reaction--or for anyone else to whom it doesn't apply. I don't mean to sound like a Sensative Sally, either... I was just throwing that rumination out as food for thought.
quote: She didn't have to state it because she made it very obvious by the way they interacted with each other, and she very clearly described their feelings for each other. Seems simple enough to me.
Some characters that may be true of, some less so. For those who's romances are forefront--I agree with you. And perhaps my examples were poor because they are the "too obvious" ones. There may be others, however, whose sexuality may be less obvious in our minds, but who may be just as ambiguous. JK apparently didn't feel the need to clarify in Dumbledore's case until the most recent director was going to add a line about a past crush he once had on a girl, and she wanted to correct it; and well as in answer to a fan's question.
I wonder if the phenomenon is similiar to how some characters from novels I have read are cast in films, when it comes to certain attributes. For example, the fact that I am caucasian means that, in my imagination, I most often picture characters being white--unless otherwise explicitly stated or suggested by something in the text. I have been surprised by some of the castings in films, when the characters turn up to have different a hair color or race (to use two examples) than I always pictured them. Does that "destroy" the character for me? Perhaps it permanently alters the way I am able to view them... and I suppose that could be a whole other discussion (the merits or drawbacks of casting and forever altering litarary figures based on film castings)--but my musings simply are that sometimes, perhaps our own normative biases make us jump to assumptions that may or may not be accurate. Sometimes, we might even overlook the one or two physical descriptions and STILL have a specific image or idea about a literary character, until someone else tries to fully realize him or her on stage or screen, and then our image is challenged and we have to either re-evaluate, or ignore, someone else's creative ideas on the subject.
I don't know that I have a point.... lol... I don't THINK I'm disagreeing with anything you said, though... at least, I don't feel that way.
quote:I wonder if the phenomenon is similiar to how some characters from novels I have read are cast in films, when it comes to certain attributes. For example, the fact that I am caucasian means that, in my imagination, I most often picture characters being white--unless otherwise explicitly stated or suggested by something in the text. I have been surprised by some of the castings in films, when the characters turn up to have different a hair color or race (to use two examples) than I always pictured them.
Adams - this is a fasinating point! And perhaps that is why a lot of people have trouble imagining Dumbledore to be gay - because if they are straight they always imagine characters are straight unless stated...and perhaps vice versa as well?
Hmmm this is something for me to ponder purely because as a writer it is an idea that interests me totally independantly of the whole Dumbledore issue.
How much of our own circumstances do we impose upon a character?
That's going to occupy my brain for a few days...
From: Paphos, Cyprus!!! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a very useful concept, but how far can it be taken?
If you're catholic do you assume the people believe in God? If you're wiccan do you assume they have a bunch of candles in their house? [stereotype alert!] If you like dogs, do you assume they have several at home? If you prefer American made muscle cars do you assume they have coffee-table books on the subject?
Or is it just the race and sexual cards that we default to?
From: Back to Cali, Cali | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't have time to reply to the whole page at the moment, but for now:
quote:However, there is also the possibility that in JK Rowling's mind, Dumbledore has been gay all along. There has never been any need whatsoever to allude to it in any way in the books (Dumbledore was in no way a sexual character), so perhaps it was always there, but never mentioned.
I agree with the Reynolds article: If it can't be found in the books then it doesn't exist (except in JK Rowling's personal interpretation, which she is welcome to hold herself, but now allowed to force on everyone or call cannon. Author or not. Her power of cannon is limited to what she writes in the books, not what she interprets outside of them). Imho.
From: California ainrofilaC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is a very useful concept, but how far can it be taken?
If you're catholic do you assume the people believe in God? If you're wiccan do you assume they have a bunch of candles in their house? [stereotype alert!] If you like dogs, do you assume they have several at home? If you prefer American made muscle cars do you assume they have coffee-table books on the subject?
Or is it just the race and sexual cards that we default to?
I'm not saying that the "concept" that I was thinking-out-loud about is the way it SHOULD be... I am just saying that it is a phenominon I have noted within myself. Are such "normative assumptions" (to try to abbreviate the concept) universal? or desirable? or enforceable? I would say, "not necessarily," to all three questions. But it IS 'notable,' for whatever that may--or may not--be worth.
Here's another example, in answer to your first question (about Catholics assuming that everyone believes in God): I remember growing up and watching Star Trek: The Next Generation as a devout Mormon kid. Because of my religious views which dictated that Mormonism was "the stone cut from the mountain that would fill the whole earth," I sortof always believed that somehow, all humanity in the future will have converted to the truthfulness of the Mormon Faith (That's a rather unsettling concept to me, today). I would sort of overlook the aspects of the T.V. show that suggested otherwise... such as if the characters drank alcohol, coffee, tea, etc. The more anti-religious episodes always caused me a little bit of congitive dissoance, but I would sort of put them out of mind, emphasize the truthfulness of Mormonism in my mind, and retreat into what I believed was the virtue of Faith. Did I really think all the characters were Mormon...? Well... no, I guess not. But I sort of hoped/assumed/wanted them to believe what I did--even if I didn't spend a WHOLE lot of time trying to make that assumption stick...
Perhaps I am in the minority, to think in such ways... but it certainly seems like this phenomenon holds true of the heterosexual majority, which is why this particular revelation by JK Rowling is so unsettling and disturbing to so many (as well as the belief that many find homosexual behavior and/or identifying one's self as 'gay' to be immoral, of course).
I don't think many of us assume that everyone has the same type of dog that we do, or the same taste in cars or coffe-table books... but I think there are some unspoken assumptions about some of the fundamental ways in which we identify ourselves--some even unconsciously--that WOULD hold true. This issue seems to be one of those kinds.
There is a saying that I think may be relevant, here--something along the lines of:
"The last thing a fish becomes conscious of is water itself."
Again, I appreciate the good food for thought, Lilliana!
quote: I agree with the Reynolds article: If it can't be found in the books then it doesn't exist (except in JK Rowling's personal interpretation, which she is welcome to hold herself, but now allowed to force on everyone or call cannon. Author or not. Her power of cannon is limited to what she writes in the books, not what she interprets outside of them). Imho.
I agree with both your thoughts above, and the idea that no one is “forced” or should feel compelled to accept “as cannon” anything they don’t want to, with regards to believing whatever they wish about anything not found in the Harry Potter books themselves… They are fictional stories, at the end of the day. I hope I made that clear that I agree “that readers are free to believe what they wish to” when I said, in my first post in this thread:
quote: I read with interest the one Christian's blog who spoke of how it is preposterous for Rowling to have insisted, after-the-fact, that Dumbledore is gay, and that the character no longer belongs to her, but to the readers—who are, of course, free to believe what they will.
(Bold added)
It will be interesting if Rowling ever decides to cement this new revelation through revisiting it in any kind of ‘prequel.’—to see what the public reaction would be, were she ever to decide to undertake such a controversial action.
D
P.S. On a somewhat related note, has anyone read Mercedes Lackey’s "The Last Herald-Mage" trilogy? That’s a definate example of a rather mainstream fantasy novel that actually DOES have overt gay themes that are central to it’s story—which, when I first read it in my late teens, totally caught me off guard when first introduced in the text!
From: Utah | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Adams - thanks, again, for your insightful post. My questions were not meant to be an attack, I hope you didn't take it that way. Rather, I'm wondering myself, the implications of presumptions of the reader, which is a branch of literary studies (I think reader response, actually...) and something that I think is absolutely necessary to understand before trying to interpret a piece of fiction. I'm just curious about how many prejudices of the reader are taken into account. I guess they would be the ones that affect the deeper truths of reality, in which religion falls into that category for many (and non-religion for that matter). I wonder, say, if some hard core atheists read the book and assume that Dumbledore, as a man of great intelligence and power, naturally does not believe in a higher power. Or, even if that the entire world of Harry Potter (though in our world...still yet a fiction) does not believe an any higher power. Interesting because JK Rowling does seem to have some knowledge of the Bible and other religious beliefs, though does not explicitly say anything about it in her books. I wonder, then, if people would have the same mixed reactions if she revealed also that Minerva is a Buddhist.
[ 10-31-2007, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Lillianna ]
From: Back to Cali, Cali | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is a very useful concept, but how far can it be taken?
If you're catholic do you assume the people believe in God? If you're wiccan do you assume they have a bunch of candles in their house? [stereotype alert!] If you like dogs, do you assume they have several at home? If you prefer American made muscle cars do you assume they have coffee-table books on the subject?
Or is it just the race and sexual cards that we default to?
I think what we're tlaking about here is the point of overlap between two schemata. (In psychology and cognitive science, a schema is a sort of mental template used to organize and categorize cognitive information and provide a basis/infrastructure for understanding the world).
Role schemata include collections of social norms as you perceive them. This is immediately what I thought of while reading Adams' s post about assuming that people tend to be like you unless otherwise stated.
This is the same type of schema responsible for a study done to test Walter Lippman's quote: "For the most part, we do not first see and then define, we define and then see."
Basically, people were shown photos from newspapers of people committing crimes, and then later ask to recall details from memory. The vast proportion of those tested recalled many criminal perpetrators as black, although they clearly were not. This is a good example of schema theory at work.
For the post in question, "person" schemata also come into play, which define how we think people do/should behave. Basically, the tendency that Adams spoke of lies somewhere in the overlap between these two types. So I suppose whether or not we revert only to race/sexuality depends on the nature of your own perceptions (which seems like an obvious statement to make when I put it like that! )
Personally, I know many people who assume that other people are Christian (or at least religious) simply because they are. Perhaps it just extends to those concepts and roles that are most deeply ingrained into a particular person?
From: Austin | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think that in fantasy in particular, people do tend to assume that all the good guys are white and straight. I have tried to counteract a little by thinking about what characters in Lotr for example could have been black as I'm sure that Tolkien didn't mention skin colour for all his characters! In fact, I once had a little theory, which I haven't completely given up on that Aragorn was black-skinned! I should say that my opinions on the Sexuality of certain characters in the stories are entirely my own, not I think without evidence, but only for such ears as myself! I find that when I write fiction for myself, I have to come out and say the races of characters that I wish to be Black or Asian so there is no confusion. A little bit of affirmative action in fanfic I also do have a character or two that are Gay, but I don't actually say it, I just don't have them getting married and consider them Gay in my eyes! Another example of fictional characters which are very probably Gay would be that of Doctor Who if anyone has heard of the program. Another program from my childhood. Of course, I have learned since that many of those involved in the production where Gay and the Doctor has been played by Gay actors in the past and the character has never shown any sexual feelings at all! A show like Star Trek is a little more complex as most of the main characters have had relations with the opposite sex at some stage in the shows long-running history. One exception is the God-like Q who I think is at least bisexual. He certainly has camp tendencies. For example I remember one episode where for some reason, totally unrelated to the plot, he wore an extremely tight pair of pants way too small for him and you could see his, er, manhood under his tights in the same way as a male ballet dancers. I never could quite understand why!
From: Bagshot Row, Hobbiton, The Shire! | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe JK Rowling's outing of Dumbledore wasn't out of the blue... it seems that she is still writing about the world of Hogwarts. Ironic that it is a set of "fairytales", no?
From that interview...
quote: Rowling said she had always seen him as gay in her mind.
"No-one ever asked me had he ever been in love or fallen in love. People were very focussed on what happens to Harry so I had never been asked a direct question.
"And because to answer it would immediately flag up an infatuation with what happens in book seven, I never said it."
Always nice to see you here Adams!
From: Sverige! | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See that is just strange - the new book thing I mean.
JK has always claimed that she writes 'for the children' and then comes up with an idea to release just seven copies of a book that millions of children will want to get their hands on...
From: Paphos, Cyprus!!! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:JK has always claimed that she writes 'for the children' and then comes up with an idea to release just seven copies of a book that millions of children will want to get their hands on...
Yeah, that is really elitist and kind of cruel.
From: California ainrofilaC | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yeah, that is really elitist and kind of cruel.
I agree... it also doesn't seem realistic in ANY sense of the word. She can't REALLY think that no one is going to push for these to be published, can she...?
If I had to bet, my money would be on the idea that these stories somehow WILL make it to the printing press...
D
From: Utah | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A little bit of Fanfiction for people from me! Kind of like an alternative ending!
Harry stepped up after seeing the inevitable. Only after seeing it, he still couldn't quite believe it had happened. Yes, Voldermort had finally gone after trying to curse him, again, and finding out that he couldn't. Well, Harry wasn't particularly vain, but having been through all that he had done a bit of congratulations was in order, thought he as he prepared to face everyone. When suddenly everything went black. He looked around could see nothing. He wondered in shock what was happening, when he did see something. Someone, actually! Professor Snape! And looking evil and angry. But this was wrong, Snape had been killed, surely, he had seen it. Snape performed a very slow and sarcastic round of applause. 'Well, done Potter. You killed my worse enemy. Well, bit of a fluk as I always thought, I don't think you deserved much credit, you idiot boy,' Harry stuttered, 'But Snape, I thought you were....' 'Dead? That person been cursed by Voldermot and thrown out of the Headmaster's window? Yes, I bet you enjoyed that. Ha, that wasn't me, that was someone I forced to take a polyjuice potion just to look like me. Which you might have spotted if you weren't such an idiotic moron.' 'But Snape your memories...' 'You mean from the pensive. Really, Potter, your idiocity knows no bounds. Don't you realize that pensives can be faked? Quite easily really? Oh, I suppose you don't, dunderhead, although you could have done had you only looked in a few books. Ha, ha, falling in love with your mum, what a laugh, I only noticed her in a teenage fantasy, but I knew you'd like that! But you never did that, did you. Now you will suffer. Let me tell you a few things. I always hated Voldermort. He took the place that was rightfully mine. The Dark Lord. Hmmmmmm. That was my role. The one man I couldn't beat. But of course, I had you to do that. I encouraged him to try to kill you as I knew he couldn't. So now I will finish the job,' Snape raised his wand. Harry stammered, 'But you can't curse me it won't work,' 'Potter, how many more times will you talk nonsense at me? Voldermort couldn't kill you, let me assure you I am perfectly capable. Then I will take over my rightful role as the undisputed ruler of wizardry.' Harry raised his wand and shouted, 'Avada Kedavra,' at Snape. Or at least he would have done had not Snape seen Harry's lips say the phrase then stunned Harry before Harry got the words out. Harry awoke. 'Now, Potter, not only did I manage to stun you I have now paralyzed you as well. Only because I want you to hear this. Really Potter, that must have been the worst excuse for a killing curse I have ever heard. It grated me that I had to labour to keep you alive for so long. Down to me Voldermort would have killed you in your first year. Still all things come to those that wait!' Snape chuckled evilly, 'To think that Voldermort lived in such fear for such a simpleton as you. And now I have you. Ha, ha, no one really knew my full game. Voldermort thought I was working for him. So did Dumbledore. Neither knew that I hated them both and I was in fact working for myself. I suppose that in fact that I owe you my thanks. You at least could eliminate Voldermort which I could never do. So thank you.' The last sentance could not have been more ironically put by anyone. Snape continued, 'I could consider letting you live, even making you a partner. But that wouldn't work, would it? You're too much in Dumbledore's camp, I don't trust you and frankly you know a little too much. So, this is goodbye. I shall at least enjoy this,' Harry looked into Snape's face. He had thought he had known Snape. He was wrong. It seemed to him that Snape's expression changed to something he had never seen before. Harry looked into Snape's eyes and thought that for the first time he had finally understood Snape. Snape said softly but with deadly intent, 'AVADA KEDAVRA!'
![[]](icons/icon31.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon10.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon59.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon22.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon54.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon7.gif){kind=icon}
I also do have a character or two that are Gay, but I don't actually say it, I just don't have them getting married and consider them Gay in my eyes!
![[]](icons/icon12.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon26.gif){kind=icon}
![[]](icons/icon65.gif){kind=icon}
Printer-friendly view of this topic
