Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows SPOILER Thread
-
- Soldier
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 6:25 pm
- Title: Peacocks can't Lurk
- Location: Mutter's Spiral
Hmm. . . Rita Skeeter wrote about "the whole Potter-Dumbledore relationship." Apparently she was only half-lying.
I am more surprised that fans seem to like the announcement than the announcement itself. Will people cheer if she says she's "Bigger than Jesus," too? Don't get me wrong, I like the Harry Potter books, but it does make me wonder -- where are all those fanatic religious groups went that were fighting Harry Potter when it first came out?
I am more surprised that fans seem to like the announcement than the announcement itself. Will people cheer if she says she's "Bigger than Jesus," too? Don't get me wrong, I like the Harry Potter books, but it does make me wonder -- where are all those fanatic religious groups went that were fighting Harry Potter when it first came out?
A signature so short, it's
Slim
Slim
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
I know people who've said that this makes his relationship with Harry seem squicky and weird.
This confuses me.
Dumbledore is gay. That doesn't make him a pedophile. It also doesn't make him attracted to Harry. Hermione is straight, and there was nothing sexual about it when she and Harry were all alone in the woods.
This confuses me.
Dumbledore is gay. That doesn't make him a pedophile. It also doesn't make him attracted to Harry. Hermione is straight, and there was nothing sexual about it when she and Harry were all alone in the woods.
- neo-dragon
- Commander
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
- Title: Huey Revolutionary
- Location: Canada
Ah, well I won't be one to argue with Literary Critics and Academics, but I maintain that as a lowly uneducated reader I personally see no literary necessity or value in making Dumbledore gay, since his sexuality does not affect any element of the plot.Literary critics and academics alike with disagree heartily. There was an abundant application of Queer Theory applied to the text ages before Dumbledore's sexuality was revealed; I can see massive revelations ahead for the text in terms of Queer and Feminist theory in particular, not to mention Freudian and a healthy array of others.
I don't see this as attempt to piss off fundamentalists, I see this as a token attempt to appear open-minded and accepting, when it adds nothing of value to her story.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~
- Young Val
- Commander
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
- Title: Papermaster
- First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
- Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
- Contact:
Feisty! I never once implied you were uneducated or lowly or that your opinion was of no worth or even incorrect. I'm neither a literary critic nor an academic myself. I simply stated that there is a whole community of people who will see value in the added information--ANY added information--that supplements the text. Which is true.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
- Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Eh, I don't buy it. Unless you spend your time decrying ALL of the arbitrary decisions about character backstory that don't explicitly affect the story.Ah, well I won't be one to argue with Literary Critics and Academics, but I maintain that as a lowly uneducated reader I personally see no literary necessity or value in making Dumbledore gay, since his sexuality does not affect any element of the plot.Literary critics and academics alike with disagree heartily. There was an abundant application of Queer Theory applied to the text ages before Dumbledore's sexuality was revealed; I can see massive revelations ahead for the text in terms of Queer and Feminist theory in particular, not to mention Freudian and a healthy array of others.
I don't see this as attempt to piss off fundamentalists, I see this as a token attempt to appear open-minded and accepting, when it adds nothing of value to her story.
And we haven't even stepped into the mudpie that is the argument surrounding the relevance of Dumbledore's sexuality, which is not insignificant.
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
This isn't an element of the character's backstory, it's who the character is. And in any case, my problem with her revealing this is solely based on the fact that Dumbledore for all intents and purposes essentially has no sexuality, and thus defining it is a token gesture. It wouldn't be at all the same issue if Lupin or Sirius were gay.Eh, I don't buy it. Unless you spend your time decrying ALL of the arbitrary decisions about character backstory that don't explicitly affect the story.
Ok, then what is the relevance?And we haven't even stepped into the mudpie that is the argument surrounding the relevance of Dumbledore's sexuality, which is not insignificant.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~
- Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
I disagree.This isn't an element of the character's backstory, it's who the character is. And in any case, my problem with her revealing this is solely based on the fact that Dumbledore for all intents and purposes essentially has no sexuality, and thus defining it is a token gesture. It wouldn't be at all the same issue if Lupin or Sirius were gay.Eh, I don't buy it. Unless you spend your time decrying ALL of the arbitrary decisions about character backstory that don't explicitly affect the story.
Ok, then what is the relevance?And we haven't even stepped into the mudpie that is the argument surrounding the relevance of Dumbledore's sexuality, which is not insignificant.
Firstly, backstory, as I use it (and, daresay, many others do too) implies aspects of the character that aren't necessarily listed in the prose but do indeed exist so that the author, while creating, can be consistent and more compelling. So when I say backstory and you talk about 'who the character is' we are, essentially, discussing the same thing.
The fact that, to you (i.e. to Harry), Dumbledore appears asexual (or without sexuality, which is different, but let's move past that) is testament to his professionalism as a headmaster and his importance as a mentor. Hell, Harry used it as a MANTRA in that last book that there was SO MUCH (insert angst here) that Dumbledore never told him about his past. And sexual exploits would be at the bottom of the very long list of things that Dumbledore might explain to a student of his.
Also, there is in fact a reason (as if someone's sexuality needs to have a reason --- no no no, I wasn't implying that was what you said) for Dumbledore's sexuality. Without getting too much into it (because I've already devoted an embarrassing amount of time to this discussion), it makes him more human by allowing him to make a serious mistake.
Maybe you just think authors should create and then shut up about it, allowing everyone their own interpretation (the so-called intentionalist fallacy, which we can get into another time). Or maybe you just don't want authors to decide anything about their characters unless it becomes a plot point. I'm not sure, but I don't like either.
Make any sense? It's awfully early....
Harry learns much about Dumbledore that Dumbledore wouldn't have explained to him personally because of their teacher-student relationship.The fact that, to you (i.e. to Harry), Dumbledore appears asexual (or without sexuality, which is different, but let's move past that) is testament to his professionalism as a headmaster and his importance as a mentor. Hell, Harry used it as a MANTRA in that last book that there was SO MUCH (insert angst here) that Dumbledore never told him about his past. And sexual exploits would be at the bottom of the very long list of things that Dumbledore might explain to a student of his.
I'm going to assume (since you won't specify) that you mean his relationship with Grindewald, which of course could have taken place whether he was gay or not.Also, there is in fact a reason (as if someone's sexuality needs to have a reason --- no no no, I wasn't implying that was what you said) for Dumbledore's sexuality. Without getting too much into it (because I've already devoted an embarrassing amount of time to this discussion), it makes him more human by allowing him to make a serious mistake.
Meh, I just dislike what I believe is a shallow attempt at appearing fashionable and new-agey by making a character in a children's series gay. I would be much more impressed if she had made his homosexuality relevant to the text.Maybe you just think authors should create and then shut up about it, allowing everyone their own interpretation (the so-called intentionalist fallacy, which we can get into another time). Or maybe you just don't want authors to decide anything about their characters unless it becomes a plot point. I'm not sure, but I don't like either.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~
-
- Toon Leader
- Posts: 1065
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:03 pm
- Young Val
- Commander
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
- Title: Papermaster
- First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
- Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
- Contact:
Your problem is not that Dumbledore is gay, but that you think her telling us so is a publicity stunt--and you disapprove of that.
It's unfortunate that you view it in that light, as almost nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise.
How can it be a publicity stunt to answer a question? Unless you believe she made up an answer on the spot. She's hardly in need of publicity, and she's hardly in need of a good media image. The woman is revered. She's sponsored charities galore. She's always very public about her dedication to such things. She doesn't need to appear "fashionable and new-agey" (Also--since when is homosexuality "new-agey?"). She IS fashionable. She has nothing to gain from such a revelation. That leads me to conclude that she simply answered the question with the truth.
It's unfortunate that you view it in that light, as almost nothing anyone says could convince you otherwise.
How can it be a publicity stunt to answer a question? Unless you believe she made up an answer on the spot. She's hardly in need of publicity, and she's hardly in need of a good media image. The woman is revered. She's sponsored charities galore. She's always very public about her dedication to such things. She doesn't need to appear "fashionable and new-agey" (Also--since when is homosexuality "new-agey?"). She IS fashionable. She has nothing to gain from such a revelation. That leads me to conclude that she simply answered the question with the truth.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
I don't see this as a publicity stunt, you're quite right she doesn't need it. It appears more to be something personal that she decided and felt was a good thing but that I, in my magnificence, ultimately deem shallow and empty. Of course, I could be wrong, she could well have simply decided to do it because she had a homosexual friend that she had a lot of respect for and wanted to honour or something, but whatever, the points I'm making now were just my initial gut reactions to the whole thing.
Though I might add, just because she revealed it in a Q and A doesn't mean she never intended to reveal it otherwise.
And yes, my problem was that it's Dumbledore who's gay, as it's easy to just say he's gay without pissing off certain Christians since his character is one who's sexual preference does not make the smallest bit of difference (besides a slight change to how he related to Grindewald). It's easy to accept the gay guy who shows no signs of homosexuality, so the whole thing strikes me as too safe.
Anyway, I'm mostly unconcerned about the whole thing, but felt it worth throwing in my two cents. At this point I'm starting to seriously lose interest, as should every other sane person.
Though I might add, just because she revealed it in a Q and A doesn't mean she never intended to reveal it otherwise.
And yes, my problem was that it's Dumbledore who's gay, as it's easy to just say he's gay without pissing off certain Christians since his character is one who's sexual preference does not make the smallest bit of difference (besides a slight change to how he related to Grindewald). It's easy to accept the gay guy who shows no signs of homosexuality, so the whole thing strikes me as too safe.
Anyway, I'm mostly unconcerned about the whole thing, but felt it worth throwing in my two cents. At this point I'm starting to seriously lose interest, as should every other sane person.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~
- Young Val
- Commander
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:00 pm
- Title: Papermaster
- First Joined: 12 Sep 2000
- Location: from New York City to St. Paul, MN (but I'm a Boston girl at heart).
- Contact:
Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you (which is VERY likely, I'm having "a hell of the day at the office" as people in movies often say) but your complaints hardly seem consistent. I'm just not sure what about it bugs you.
First ,I think, you said you thought it was pointless, then you seemed to think that the point was to appear open-minded but that it added nothing of value to the story, then you seemed to say that the issue is that you dislike that she specifically outed Dumbledore as opposed to Lupin or Sirius, then you said that it was a shallow attempt to appear fashionable and new-agey.
Now you think the whole thing is too "safe.'
...Which is it?
I do disagree with the idea that it's "easier" to out a character like Dumbledore than it would be to out a character like Lupin. No one (I speak very very generally here) would be all that shocked if Lupin were gay. The metaphor for the case is incredibly strong. But this isn't about shock value and it isn't about expectations and stereotypes; it's simply about the lives of her characters.
There's another issue at stake here--the idea that JKR "decided" Dumbledore was gay or "made" him gay. I can't speak specifically to her writing processes and I won't try. But in my experience, and in the experience of many of the authors I work for, most characters spring from the head fully-formed (a la Athena). A writer then spends a good deal of time getting to know his characters. Who will give the writer hell and high water by doing what THEY want to do, instead of what the AUTHOR wants them to do. And if the author FORCES them to do otherwise than they are naturally inclined, it will be extremely palpable in the text (I think this happened to JKR in a few spots throughout the series, actually, but overall she's very good at listening to what her characters want).
The number one critique I give to any and all writers is, "So-and-so doesn't want to do that. She would NEVER do that. She isn't like that. She's X Y and Z. She would do THIS." Most writers will fight me tooth and nail, and insist that THEY created these characters and THEY know them best. Almost always they'll come back then next day and say that they sat down with the book and thought about it and talked to the characters a little bit and found out that I was right. The characters have a will and a personality of their own.
I'm willing to be almost everything I own--which is very little--that JKR never planned to have Dumbledore be gay. He most likely just approached her that way.
First ,I think, you said you thought it was pointless, then you seemed to think that the point was to appear open-minded but that it added nothing of value to the story, then you seemed to say that the issue is that you dislike that she specifically outed Dumbledore as opposed to Lupin or Sirius, then you said that it was a shallow attempt to appear fashionable and new-agey.
Now you think the whole thing is too "safe.'
...Which is it?
I do disagree with the idea that it's "easier" to out a character like Dumbledore than it would be to out a character like Lupin. No one (I speak very very generally here) would be all that shocked if Lupin were gay. The metaphor for the case is incredibly strong. But this isn't about shock value and it isn't about expectations and stereotypes; it's simply about the lives of her characters.
There's another issue at stake here--the idea that JKR "decided" Dumbledore was gay or "made" him gay. I can't speak specifically to her writing processes and I won't try. But in my experience, and in the experience of many of the authors I work for, most characters spring from the head fully-formed (a la Athena). A writer then spends a good deal of time getting to know his characters. Who will give the writer hell and high water by doing what THEY want to do, instead of what the AUTHOR wants them to do. And if the author FORCES them to do otherwise than they are naturally inclined, it will be extremely palpable in the text (I think this happened to JKR in a few spots throughout the series, actually, but overall she's very good at listening to what her characters want).
The number one critique I give to any and all writers is, "So-and-so doesn't want to do that. She would NEVER do that. She isn't like that. She's X Y and Z. She would do THIS." Most writers will fight me tooth and nail, and insist that THEY created these characters and THEY know them best. Almost always they'll come back then next day and say that they sat down with the book and thought about it and talked to the characters a little bit and found out that I was right. The characters have a will and a personality of their own.
I'm willing to be almost everything I own--which is very little--that JKR never planned to have Dumbledore be gay. He most likely just approached her that way.
you snooze, you lose
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
well I have snozzed and lost
I'm pushing through
I'll disregard the cost
I hear the bells
so fascinating and
I'll slug it out
I'm sick of waiting
and I can
hear the bells are
ringing joyful and triumphant
The end is in sight I think.
That's what I meant when I said it was pointless, that it achieved nothing both in literary terms and as what could be considered a stand for gay acceptance. I suppose I haven't been making my points clear enough, I haven't really been trying to build a concrete argument, just offer opinions.
And I never said I disliked that she chose to out Dumbledore instead of Sirius or Lupin, heh, you make it sound like my fanboi dreams have been consumed with the idea of them being outed and I was disappointed when I got the old man instead. I used Sirius and Lupin as examples of people who's outing I would have considered substantially less safe, and especially in the case of Lupin, more relevant to the books.
But anyway, you say Dumbledore could have approached her as a homosexual, still though, it seems that Dumbledore's sexual preferences are so removed from his character that it doesn't strike me as something that would come out of such an organic process.
:: grin :: I guess you're getting a whole mess of thoughts.Perhaps I'm just misunderstanding you (which is VERY likely, I'm having "a hell of the day at the office" as people in movies often say) but your complaints hardly seem consistent. I'm just not sure what about it bugs you.
First ,I think, you said you thought it was pointless, then you seemed to think that the point was to appear open-minded but that it added nothing of value to the story, then you seemed to say that the issue is that you dislike that she specifically outed Dumbledore as opposed to Lupin or Sirius, then you said that it was a shallow attempt to appear fashionable and new-agey.
Now you think the whole thing is too "safe.'
...Which is it?
That's what I meant when I said it was pointless, that it achieved nothing both in literary terms and as what could be considered a stand for gay acceptance. I suppose I haven't been making my points clear enough, I haven't really been trying to build a concrete argument, just offer opinions.
And I never said I disliked that she chose to out Dumbledore instead of Sirius or Lupin, heh, you make it sound like my fanboi dreams have been consumed with the idea of them being outed and I was disappointed when I got the old man instead. I used Sirius and Lupin as examples of people who's outing I would have considered substantially less safe, and especially in the case of Lupin, more relevant to the books.
That may well be the case, and certainly I remember her describing that Harry came into her head as a fully formed character. Personally, being not much of a writer myself (and one of little imagination whenever I try) I can't argue against that, though I would say there's something that doesn't sound right about the idea that so little intent and purpose goes into characters who fit and compliment themes in books so well. If Ender came into OSC's head fully formed than I consider us most fortunate that he didn't pop up any differently, since any other character wouldn't have been as good probably.I do disagree with the idea that it's "easier" to out a character like Dumbledore than it would be to out a character like Lupin. No one (I speak very very generally here) would be all that shocked if Lupin were gay. The metaphor for the case is incredibly strong. But this isn't about shock value and it isn't about expectations and stereotypes; it's simply about the lives of her characters.
There's another issue at stake here--the idea that JKR "decided" Dumbledore was gay or "made" him gay. I can't speak specifically to her writing processes and I won't try. But in my experience, and in the experience of many of the authors I work for, most characters spring from the head fully-formed (a la Athena). A writer then spends a good deal of time getting to know his characters. Who will give the writer hell and high water by doing what THEY want to do, instead of what the AUTHOR wants them to do. And if the author FORCES them to do otherwise than they are naturally inclined, it will be extremely palpable in the text (I think this happened to JKR in a few spots throughout the series, actually, but overall she's very good at listening to what her characters want).
The number one critique I give to any and all writers is, "So-and-so doesn't want to do that. She would NEVER do that. She isn't like that. She's X Y and Z. She would do THIS." Most writers will fight me tooth and nail, and insist that THEY created these characters and THEY know them best. Almost always they'll come back then next day and say that they sat down with the book and thought about it and talked to the characters a little bit and found out that I was right. The characters have a will and a personality of their own.
I'm willing to be almost everything I own--which is very little--that JKR never planned to have Dumbledore be gay. He most likely just approached her that way.
But anyway, you say Dumbledore could have approached her as a homosexual, still though, it seems that Dumbledore's sexual preferences are so removed from his character that it doesn't strike me as something that would come out of such an organic process.
~Don't ask me, I'm just a girl!~
- Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
I'm there with you. Don't worry. I'm actually a little ashamed at how long we've discussed this.Of course, I could be wrong, she could well have simply decided to do it because she had a homosexual friend that she had a lot of respect for and wanted to honour or something, but whatever, the points I'm making now were just my initial gut reactions to the whole thing.
See, that's it. That's where I think we diverge. I don't think it was a statement or an homage or anything. I think, as YV said, it was just a part of his character that Rowling went along with. In this case, it happened to not effect much change in the story.
Though I might add, just because she revealed it in a Q and A doesn't mean she never intended to reveal it otherwise.
That's not really fair. Unless you work for the Department of Pre-Crime
Anyway, I'm mostly unconcerned about the whole thing, but felt it worth throwing in my two cents. At this point I'm starting to seriously lose interest, as should every other sane person.
I'm sort of surpised we haven't seen an OSC vitriolic essay about how JKR has been abducted by the evil aliens of the left wing kill-all-"good"-americans agenda and can no longer be taken seriously as an author (etc ad nauseum), filled to the brim with a bunch of sleezily written straw-man arguments as his proof and evidence.
Or worse, it'll be an essay where it shows that Dumbledore is still an hero and should still be respected because he learned/taught the secret to life (just like Bean/Anton)--try to live a heterosexual existence no matter what, and live chastely if you're not, the way dumbledore did. :rolleyes:
Or worse, it'll be an essay where it shows that Dumbledore is still an hero and should still be respected because he learned/taught the secret to life (just like Bean/Anton)--try to live a heterosexual existence no matter what, and live chastely if you're not, the way dumbledore did. :rolleyes:
So, Lone Star, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
- Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Now now, let's be fair and not eviscerate a man for an essay he didn't write.I'm sort of surpised we haven't seen an OSC vitriolic essay about how JKR has been abducted by the evil aliens of the left wing kill-all-"good"-americans agenda and can no longer be taken seriously as an author (etc ad nauseum), filled to the brim with a bunch of sleezily written straw-man arguments as his proof and evidence.
Or worse, it'll be an essay where it shows that Dumbledore is still an hero and should still be respected because he learned/taught the secret to life (just like Bean/Anton)--try to live a heterosexual existence no matter what, and live chastely if you're not, the way dumbledore did. :rolleyes:
- starlooker
- Commander
- Posts: 3823
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:19 pm
- Title: Dr. Mom
- First Joined: 28 Oct 2002
- Location: Home. With cats who have names.
- neo-dragon
- Commander
- Posts: 2516
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:26 pm
- Title: Huey Revolutionary
- Location: Canada
Hey, if Rowling gets props for having the balls (so to speak) to make a potentially unpopular and controversial move then Card should get props if he responds to it with opinions that are equally controversial.I'm sort of surpised we haven't seen an OSC vitriolic essay about how JKR has been abducted by the evil aliens of the left wing kill-all-"good"-americans agenda and can no longer be taken seriously as an author (etc ad nauseum), filled to the brim with a bunch of sleezily written straw-man arguments as his proof and evidence.
Or worse, it'll be an essay where it shows that Dumbledore is still an hero and should still be respected because he learned/taught the secret to life (just like Bean/Anton)--try to live a heterosexual existence no matter what, and live chastely if you're not, the way dumbledore did. :rolleyes:
- Oliver Dale
- Former Speaker
- Posts: 601
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2006 5:24 pm
- Title: Trapped in the Trunk!
Return to “Milagre Town Square”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 0 guests