#76
Posted: 10/22/07 at 5:27pm
OMG windycity, that is hialrious!
....but the world goes 'round
Holy cow, Dumbledore's gay! — Page 4
#77
Posted: 10/23/07 at 4:43pm
A follow up.....
New words from Rowling
New words from Rowling
"I'm an American, Damnit!!! And if it's three things I don't believe in, it's quitting and math."
#78
Posted: 10/23/07 at 6:34pm
Her reasons for not including Dumbledore's sexuality in the series make sense to me. That is cool that someone has already come out b/c of the revelation, at least according to JKR.
#79
Posted: 10/23/07 at 7:00pm
Just saw a cartoon showing Dumbledore in a stall next to Larry Craig who is saying Psst.
Poster Emeritus
#80
Posted: 10/23/07 at 7:02pm
JKR's "I would have told you ages ago!" made it into Newsweek.
#81
Posted: 10/24/07 at 11:50am
a very nicely worded article by one of the editors of Mugglenet:
Long, but well organized.
"The recent revelations about Dumbledore's sexuality have provoked a huge amount of debate, and quite rightly so. The issue is important, and Dumbledore is one of the most loved and respected characters in the series, so we shouldn't be surprised that just about everyone wants to offer an opinion on the matter. What has been disappointing, and to me at least (although perhaps somewhat naïvely), surprising, has been the negativity of some of the reactions.
The truth of the matter is this: whether Albus is attracted to women or to men makes not one jot of difference to his ability as a wizard, a headmaster, a fighter against Voldemort and a mentor to Harry. It doesn't make his intentions or reasons different, or affect the importance of any of his actions or achievements. And yet, whilst a large amount of the debate on the issue has been constructive, there is still a very loud and significant voice within it shouting that JKR has let us down, Dumbledore has let us down, and questioning how we can never look at either Albus or the books in the same way again. Most ludicrously of all, the suggestion has been repeatedly made that this information puts an entirely different light on Dumbledore's relationship with Harry.
I suggested that my surprise at the vitriol directed in Dumbledore's direction by some (although certainly not all people) was naïve, and my reasons for this are as follows: I believed that the world was moving towards being a more tolerant place, where discrimination was being driven out wherever it was found. It wasn't long ago that racism was rampant and accepted as a general part of society; now it is not. The same is true of sexism, anti-Semitism, religious discrimination of other types and so on. I'm not saying that no racists, sexists or anti-Semites still exist, but to be one has become the socially unacceptable stance rather than the other way round.
I had believed that we were moving in the same way with homophobia, and that it was becoming a social taboo to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation (which after all hurts nobody else and involves activities between consenting adults only). This is certain true to an extent, but it only takes an event like the announcement about Dumbledore for it to become clear how much work still needs to be done in accepting everyone as equals regardless of their sexuality.
The bottom line is that discrimination, of all forms, is unacceptable. Very few people these days think it is acceptable to treat somebody unfavourably because he is black, or because she is female. JKR herself, during her US tour, described the HP books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance", where she has quite deliberately moved to make her characters real and human, with all the idiosyncrasies that come with it. She has, at every turn, resisted making her heroes square-jawed hunks with copper-flecked eyes, and her heroines images of perfection that shine with radiant beauty. This is one of the things that made Simon Walters' 2006 attack on her portrayal of overweight characters (which resulted in our "Fat is a Feminist Issue" article in defence of JKR) so ridiculous. Dumbledore's sexuality is part of this process of tolerance that Jo is promoting.
Let us be certain about one thing: Jo didn't make this up on the spot, and the evidence - particularly with regards to Albus' relationship with Gellert Grindelwald, is there for all to see in the books. Dumbledore was always gay, but the issue hadn't been brought up and stated explicitly because it wasn't relevant. When the news came out, it wasn't because JK suddenly decided to announce it, it was because she was asked a question and answered honestly. She made Dumbledore gay for the same reason that she made Dean and Kingsley black, Harry have glasses, the Weasley family have ginger hair, or Hermione have buck teeth and an unusual name: she wanted to make the point that you can be any of these things and still be the hero, still be the good guy. In her own words, she wanted to promote tolerance.
It should be pointed out at this stage that it isn't my right, or anyone else's, to tell anybody else what to think. I certainly don't want to promote an Orwellian society where Thought Criminals are sent to Room 101 for reprogramming. What I do want to do is to raise issues and educate the reader where necessary so that they can make informed decisions for themselves rather than just going with the herd mentality of thinking what somebody else has told them to think, or holding a prejudice simply because the people around them do.
It is the right of everybody to think what they want to think. It is not their right, however, to discriminate against anybody based on their opinions. Whilst freedom of speech is an important right, it often interferes with other human rights: specifically the right for freedom from intimidation or discrimination. When such rights are in direct opposition, it is the right to freedom from discrimination that must always win out. Racists often use freedom of speech arguments to justify promoting their views, but society has correctly placed greater importance on the right to freedom from intimidation for those they try to oppress. Therefore, whilst this editorial makes no attempt to tell people what to think, it must also be made clear that nobody has the right to discriminate against any group of people, whatever they think of them. And accusing JKR of letting us down or misleading us, or threatening to abandon the books altogether, just because it turns out that one of the characters is gay, is discrimination. It's as simple as that.
The case of Dumbledore is typical of the type of discrimination in question: JKR announces his sexuality, which is of no relevance whatsoever to his ability to do his job or his contribution to the fight against Voldemort, and a certain (and rather large) group of people start flinging accusations at him...
Doesn't this throw a different light on his relationship with Harry?
No, of course it doesn't. Homosexuals and paedophiles are not the same thing. Dumbledore's relationship with Harry is not affected by Dumbledore's sexuality. If you think that Dumbledore was pursuing an inappropriate relationship with Harry just because you now know that he's gay, surely when you thought he was straight you thought he was doing the same with Hermione or Ginny? This whole argument is ridiculous: just because Dumbledore was attracted to men does not mean he was attracted to Harry, or to young boys in general.
But now I can't think of Dumbledore without imagining him with other men!
Why on earth not? When you thought Dumbledore was straight, could you not think of him without imagining him with women? Why on earth would you think about that aspect of his life whenever he's mentioned? When he's talking to Harry about Voldemort, or carrying out his headmasterly duties, this sort of thing isn't relevant in the slightest.
JKR has let us all down by making Dumbledore gay!
In what way? Does it make his wisdom any less wise? Does it make his leadership of Hogwarts any less successful? Does it make him any less of a good and honest man? In a word, no! His sexual orientation is of no consequence to his work or worth. The only reason for feeling "let down" can be an irrational dislike of homosexuals in general, which is totally unreasonable.
In all honesty, it is true to say that society has come a long way with regards to treatment of gays. It is only a matter of decades ago that in some cultures practicing homosexuality was an imprisonable criminal offence, whilst in others homosexuality was seen as a mental illness. Thankfully such days are gone, but a certain portion of the reaction when a public figure such as Dumbledore "comes out" still proves that there is a long way to go.
So why is it that homosexuality is seen as such an unacceptable behaviour in the first place? Surely it is simply a matter of preference, a recognition of one's own personal feelings, that affects nobody else? Homosexuals form relationships with other homosexuals, so why on earth does it matter to anyone else?
The fact is that there are very few, if any, rational justifications for homophobic behaviour. OK, some people might see homosexuality as something that they would find revolting if they were asked to do it themselves, and I quite accept that. There are things that I feel the same way about: I would find it revolting, for example, to work in an abattoir or to eat a banana (they disagree violently with me). But I still respect others who are happy to do these things, and this is the key. Just because homosexuality is not your own preference, this is no reason not to respect other people's choices or to accuse JKR of letting people down by making Dumbledore gay.
The real reason that homosexuals are discriminated against lies with classic "them and us" human behaviour. It makes people happy to feel that they are "better" than other people, and so notional groups are formed, where people with differences - be they based on skin colour, gender, religion or sexuality - are singled out and identified as inferior. By convincing ourselves that we are "better" than the other group (although what "better" actually means is undefined), we feel better about ourselves. It's all about self-esteem.
You'd be hard pushed to find someone who'd admit that this is their reasoning, however, and to be fair, the vast majority of people probably aren't even aware that this is why they are doing it. They're just doing what everyone else is and following the pack. And so when justification is called for, debate inevitably heads in the one direction that can offer some morsel of reasoning for allowing such discrimination: religion. This is the direction that the Dumbledore debate has headed in, because it is the direction that debates about sexuality always go.
The justification is as follows: it's OK to denounce homosexuality because the Holy Book (be it the Bible, the Koran or whatever) states clearly that it is an aberration in the eyes of the Lord. End of story? Well, not quite. Now, I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert on Islam or the Koran, so I shall leave this subject well alone. Having been brought up as a Christian, however, I am something of an expert on the Bible, and so it is on this that I shall concentrate.
And the truth is… yes, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a disgusting thing in the eyes of God. It says this in the book of Leviticus, the chapter in which the laws passed from God to Moses are listed. This would appear to be pretty damning evidence at first sight, until you consider that the following laws are also specified:
* The punishment for adultery is death.
* Anyone consulting a medium is to be stoned to death.
* Anyone so much as lighting a fire in their house on the Sabbath is to be put to death.
* It is forbidden to cut your hair, or to wear clothing made out of more than one fabric.
* It is, however, perfectly acceptable to sell your children into slavery should you choose to do so.
So anybody who cites the Bible as the reason to denounce homosexuality, but who has ever had a haircut or worn a polyester and cotton shirt, actually has a moral obligation to have themselves stoned to death at the earliest opportunity.
Of course in today's society such a thing would be regarded as utterly barbaric, and quite rightly so. And this is the point. I didn't quote these laws from Leviticus in order to bring the Bible into any kind of disrepute, I did it to illustrate an important point. The fact is, the Bible was not (to quote another source) faxed from heaven. It does not contain the word of God, as dictated by God. It contains the word of God as interpreted and retold by men, often hundreds of years after the event, having been passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.
The Bible is a document of its time, with its content reflecting the spirit of the times in which it was written. Back then, the laws described in Leviticus were no doubt seen as totally reasonable, but they are not today. And it is no more relevant today to discriminate against homosexuals than it is to insist on stoning someone to death for heating their home.
One important and relevant point is that Jo herself is a Christian, but an enlightened one who recognises that the general message that religion delivers (in simple language, be nice to everyone no matter how different from you they are) is more important than the minutiae of wording put together in a time when the standards of society were very different to those of today. She had not let anyone down by making Dumbledore gay, because his sexuality is irrelevant to his value in the story. To suggest otherwise is to discriminate against homosexuality in general, which (as it is a personal matter and one that affects nobody else) there is no valid reason for doing.
We now know for sure that Dumbledore was gay, and we also know (given the information provided in Deathly Hallows) that Snape was straight. This knowledge makes no difference at all, in either case. They still thought the same things as they thought before, did the same things as they did before, and had the same value as people as they had before. And for those who insist this is not the case, it would appear that Jo could teach you a lot about the issue of tolerance."
Written by Andy
Long, but well organized.
"The recent revelations about Dumbledore's sexuality have provoked a huge amount of debate, and quite rightly so. The issue is important, and Dumbledore is one of the most loved and respected characters in the series, so we shouldn't be surprised that just about everyone wants to offer an opinion on the matter. What has been disappointing, and to me at least (although perhaps somewhat naïvely), surprising, has been the negativity of some of the reactions.
The truth of the matter is this: whether Albus is attracted to women or to men makes not one jot of difference to his ability as a wizard, a headmaster, a fighter against Voldemort and a mentor to Harry. It doesn't make his intentions or reasons different, or affect the importance of any of his actions or achievements. And yet, whilst a large amount of the debate on the issue has been constructive, there is still a very loud and significant voice within it shouting that JKR has let us down, Dumbledore has let us down, and questioning how we can never look at either Albus or the books in the same way again. Most ludicrously of all, the suggestion has been repeatedly made that this information puts an entirely different light on Dumbledore's relationship with Harry.
I suggested that my surprise at the vitriol directed in Dumbledore's direction by some (although certainly not all people) was naïve, and my reasons for this are as follows: I believed that the world was moving towards being a more tolerant place, where discrimination was being driven out wherever it was found. It wasn't long ago that racism was rampant and accepted as a general part of society; now it is not. The same is true of sexism, anti-Semitism, religious discrimination of other types and so on. I'm not saying that no racists, sexists or anti-Semites still exist, but to be one has become the socially unacceptable stance rather than the other way round.
I had believed that we were moving in the same way with homophobia, and that it was becoming a social taboo to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation (which after all hurts nobody else and involves activities between consenting adults only). This is certain true to an extent, but it only takes an event like the announcement about Dumbledore for it to become clear how much work still needs to be done in accepting everyone as equals regardless of their sexuality.
The bottom line is that discrimination, of all forms, is unacceptable. Very few people these days think it is acceptable to treat somebody unfavourably because he is black, or because she is female. JKR herself, during her US tour, described the HP books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance", where she has quite deliberately moved to make her characters real and human, with all the idiosyncrasies that come with it. She has, at every turn, resisted making her heroes square-jawed hunks with copper-flecked eyes, and her heroines images of perfection that shine with radiant beauty. This is one of the things that made Simon Walters' 2006 attack on her portrayal of overweight characters (which resulted in our "Fat is a Feminist Issue" article in defence of JKR) so ridiculous. Dumbledore's sexuality is part of this process of tolerance that Jo is promoting.
Let us be certain about one thing: Jo didn't make this up on the spot, and the evidence - particularly with regards to Albus' relationship with Gellert Grindelwald, is there for all to see in the books. Dumbledore was always gay, but the issue hadn't been brought up and stated explicitly because it wasn't relevant. When the news came out, it wasn't because JK suddenly decided to announce it, it was because she was asked a question and answered honestly. She made Dumbledore gay for the same reason that she made Dean and Kingsley black, Harry have glasses, the Weasley family have ginger hair, or Hermione have buck teeth and an unusual name: she wanted to make the point that you can be any of these things and still be the hero, still be the good guy. In her own words, she wanted to promote tolerance.
It should be pointed out at this stage that it isn't my right, or anyone else's, to tell anybody else what to think. I certainly don't want to promote an Orwellian society where Thought Criminals are sent to Room 101 for reprogramming. What I do want to do is to raise issues and educate the reader where necessary so that they can make informed decisions for themselves rather than just going with the herd mentality of thinking what somebody else has told them to think, or holding a prejudice simply because the people around them do.
It is the right of everybody to think what they want to think. It is not their right, however, to discriminate against anybody based on their opinions. Whilst freedom of speech is an important right, it often interferes with other human rights: specifically the right for freedom from intimidation or discrimination. When such rights are in direct opposition, it is the right to freedom from discrimination that must always win out. Racists often use freedom of speech arguments to justify promoting their views, but society has correctly placed greater importance on the right to freedom from intimidation for those they try to oppress. Therefore, whilst this editorial makes no attempt to tell people what to think, it must also be made clear that nobody has the right to discriminate against any group of people, whatever they think of them. And accusing JKR of letting us down or misleading us, or threatening to abandon the books altogether, just because it turns out that one of the characters is gay, is discrimination. It's as simple as that.
The case of Dumbledore is typical of the type of discrimination in question: JKR announces his sexuality, which is of no relevance whatsoever to his ability to do his job or his contribution to the fight against Voldemort, and a certain (and rather large) group of people start flinging accusations at him...
Doesn't this throw a different light on his relationship with Harry?
No, of course it doesn't. Homosexuals and paedophiles are not the same thing. Dumbledore's relationship with Harry is not affected by Dumbledore's sexuality. If you think that Dumbledore was pursuing an inappropriate relationship with Harry just because you now know that he's gay, surely when you thought he was straight you thought he was doing the same with Hermione or Ginny? This whole argument is ridiculous: just because Dumbledore was attracted to men does not mean he was attracted to Harry, or to young boys in general.
But now I can't think of Dumbledore without imagining him with other men!
Why on earth not? When you thought Dumbledore was straight, could you not think of him without imagining him with women? Why on earth would you think about that aspect of his life whenever he's mentioned? When he's talking to Harry about Voldemort, or carrying out his headmasterly duties, this sort of thing isn't relevant in the slightest.
JKR has let us all down by making Dumbledore gay!
In what way? Does it make his wisdom any less wise? Does it make his leadership of Hogwarts any less successful? Does it make him any less of a good and honest man? In a word, no! His sexual orientation is of no consequence to his work or worth. The only reason for feeling "let down" can be an irrational dislike of homosexuals in general, which is totally unreasonable.
In all honesty, it is true to say that society has come a long way with regards to treatment of gays. It is only a matter of decades ago that in some cultures practicing homosexuality was an imprisonable criminal offence, whilst in others homosexuality was seen as a mental illness. Thankfully such days are gone, but a certain portion of the reaction when a public figure such as Dumbledore "comes out" still proves that there is a long way to go.
So why is it that homosexuality is seen as such an unacceptable behaviour in the first place? Surely it is simply a matter of preference, a recognition of one's own personal feelings, that affects nobody else? Homosexuals form relationships with other homosexuals, so why on earth does it matter to anyone else?
The fact is that there are very few, if any, rational justifications for homophobic behaviour. OK, some people might see homosexuality as something that they would find revolting if they were asked to do it themselves, and I quite accept that. There are things that I feel the same way about: I would find it revolting, for example, to work in an abattoir or to eat a banana (they disagree violently with me). But I still respect others who are happy to do these things, and this is the key. Just because homosexuality is not your own preference, this is no reason not to respect other people's choices or to accuse JKR of letting people down by making Dumbledore gay.
The real reason that homosexuals are discriminated against lies with classic "them and us" human behaviour. It makes people happy to feel that they are "better" than other people, and so notional groups are formed, where people with differences - be they based on skin colour, gender, religion or sexuality - are singled out and identified as inferior. By convincing ourselves that we are "better" than the other group (although what "better" actually means is undefined), we feel better about ourselves. It's all about self-esteem.
You'd be hard pushed to find someone who'd admit that this is their reasoning, however, and to be fair, the vast majority of people probably aren't even aware that this is why they are doing it. They're just doing what everyone else is and following the pack. And so when justification is called for, debate inevitably heads in the one direction that can offer some morsel of reasoning for allowing such discrimination: religion. This is the direction that the Dumbledore debate has headed in, because it is the direction that debates about sexuality always go.
The justification is as follows: it's OK to denounce homosexuality because the Holy Book (be it the Bible, the Koran or whatever) states clearly that it is an aberration in the eyes of the Lord. End of story? Well, not quite. Now, I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert on Islam or the Koran, so I shall leave this subject well alone. Having been brought up as a Christian, however, I am something of an expert on the Bible, and so it is on this that I shall concentrate.
And the truth is… yes, the Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a disgusting thing in the eyes of God. It says this in the book of Leviticus, the chapter in which the laws passed from God to Moses are listed. This would appear to be pretty damning evidence at first sight, until you consider that the following laws are also specified:
* The punishment for adultery is death.
* Anyone consulting a medium is to be stoned to death.
* Anyone so much as lighting a fire in their house on the Sabbath is to be put to death.
* It is forbidden to cut your hair, or to wear clothing made out of more than one fabric.
* It is, however, perfectly acceptable to sell your children into slavery should you choose to do so.
So anybody who cites the Bible as the reason to denounce homosexuality, but who has ever had a haircut or worn a polyester and cotton shirt, actually has a moral obligation to have themselves stoned to death at the earliest opportunity.
Of course in today's society such a thing would be regarded as utterly barbaric, and quite rightly so. And this is the point. I didn't quote these laws from Leviticus in order to bring the Bible into any kind of disrepute, I did it to illustrate an important point. The fact is, the Bible was not (to quote another source) faxed from heaven. It does not contain the word of God, as dictated by God. It contains the word of God as interpreted and retold by men, often hundreds of years after the event, having been passed down from generation to generation by word of mouth.
The Bible is a document of its time, with its content reflecting the spirit of the times in which it was written. Back then, the laws described in Leviticus were no doubt seen as totally reasonable, but they are not today. And it is no more relevant today to discriminate against homosexuals than it is to insist on stoning someone to death for heating their home.
One important and relevant point is that Jo herself is a Christian, but an enlightened one who recognises that the general message that religion delivers (in simple language, be nice to everyone no matter how different from you they are) is more important than the minutiae of wording put together in a time when the standards of society were very different to those of today. She had not let anyone down by making Dumbledore gay, because his sexuality is irrelevant to his value in the story. To suggest otherwise is to discriminate against homosexuality in general, which (as it is a personal matter and one that affects nobody else) there is no valid reason for doing.
We now know for sure that Dumbledore was gay, and we also know (given the information provided in Deathly Hallows) that Snape was straight. This knowledge makes no difference at all, in either case. They still thought the same things as they thought before, did the same things as they did before, and had the same value as people as they had before. And for those who insist this is not the case, it would appear that Jo could teach you a lot about the issue of tolerance."
Written by Andy
"I'm an American, Damnit!!! And if it's three things I don't believe in, it's quitting and math."
#82
Posted: 10/24/07 at 1:19pm
Good essay. The thing I like best about what Rowling did is that she's challenging our preconcieved notions. It's not like she tricked us. Why do we assume everyone is straight until proven guilty of man-loving? You don't have to go out of your way to give every character a sex life, and the clues to Dumbledore's sexuality within the books are implicit now that you know for sure.
Truth is it always did sort of bother me that in this world with this great message of tolerance (so important to the times we live in) was so heteronormative. I think Rowling just addressed the big civil rights issue of our generation and cemented the importance of her books all the more.
For those who are outraged--obviously, you did not "get" the story of Harry Potter. Rowling never tricked you. She always wanted to tell you to be tolerant and accepting. Maybe you were distracted by all that suggestive wand waving (or book burning).
Truth is it always did sort of bother me that in this world with this great message of tolerance (so important to the times we live in) was so heteronormative. I think Rowling just addressed the big civil rights issue of our generation and cemented the importance of her books all the more.
For those who are outraged--obviously, you did not "get" the story of Harry Potter. Rowling never tricked you. She always wanted to tell you to be tolerant and accepting. Maybe you were distracted by all that suggestive wand waving (or book burning).
yr ronin,
joey
joey
#83
Posted: 10/24/07 at 2:34pm
I was watching MSNBC Live last night and Dan Abrams had a guy on who dared to put forth the argument that (I'm paraphrasing) "sexually confused children will think 'Maybe I'll try being gay since this authority figure is doing it' and they'll be getting STDs before you know it."
I shouted at my TV, "Yes, because only gay people get STDs, f**kwit!" Judging from his reactions, I think Dan and I were on the same page...
I shouted at my TV, "Yes, because only gay people get STDs, f**kwit!" Judging from his reactions, I think Dan and I were on the same page...
http://community.livejournal.com/ltd_brands_suck/
#84
Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:27pm
We still have a long way to go, but, I do believe it's things like this that will help.
#85
Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:45pm
From the Dallas Morning News, by Jeffrey Weiss:
Harry Potter and the Author who Wouldn't Shut Up
Harry Potter and the Author who Wouldn't Shut Up
"I am open, and I am willing,
For to be hopeless would seem so strange.
It dishonors those who go before us,
So lift me up to the light of change."
Holly Near
#86
Posted: 10/24/07 at 4:58pm
I'm not buying his viewpoint. It sounds like he only wants to know what won't displease him. He's ok having her discuss how she came up with stuff--which would inevitably reveal other secrets. But in her explaining how she came up with aspects of this character and his choices, it's not ok. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think he would have written that article if she had outted a secret where Dumbledore and Professor Mcgonagall were having a private love affair.
#87
Posted: 10/24/07 at 5:00pm
No, he wouldn't have. Note how at the beginning of the article he kept expressing his interest in the religious aspect of it. The guy's clearly just uncomfortable. Lots of authors continue to give details to their story after it's over. JK Rowling has said explicitly that she plans on writing an encyclopedia (thus turning it into cannon). We would have found out eventually anyway.
People just need to freaking get over it. A kid asked her a question and she answered. What was she supposed to do, lie?
People just need to freaking get over it. A kid asked her a question and she answered. What was she supposed to do, lie?
yr ronin,
joey
joey
#88
Posted: 10/24/07 at 6:10pm
Jeffrey Weiss normally covers the religion beat for the Dallas Morning News, which is why I am unable to write a letter to the editor about his article! I, on occasion, have worked with him in a professional capacity on behalf of the church.
"I am open, and I am willing,
For to be hopeless would seem so strange.
It dishonors those who go before us,
So lift me up to the light of change."
Holly Near
#89
Posted: 10/25/07 at 11:03am
I'll write it, what's the email?
yr ronin,
joey
joey
#90
Posted: 10/25/07 at 8:49pm
jweiss@dallasnews.com
And if y'all read the column, you saw that the specifics of what Rowling 'revealed' had nothing to do with my point. If she wanted to explain why Harry had cracked glasses in Book One or how she picked the bible verses for the tombstones in Book Seven, I'm pretty much fine with that. Those are about elements that are IN THE BOOKS. But Dumbledore being or not being gay is not there. I would rather have the freedom to imagine him as either -- or neither for that matter.
Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
And if y'all read the column, you saw that the specifics of what Rowling 'revealed' had nothing to do with my point. If she wanted to explain why Harry had cracked glasses in Book One or how she picked the bible verses for the tombstones in Book Seven, I'm pretty much fine with that. Those are about elements that are IN THE BOOKS. But Dumbledore being or not being gay is not there. I would rather have the freedom to imagine him as either -- or neither for that matter.
Jeffrey Weiss
The Dallas Morning News
#91
Posted: 10/25/07 at 9:34pm
It's there in the subtext.
But let's be clear--this is not about whether or not an author should discuss what's in the book and what's not.
This is about the fact that you do not like the idea of a gay Dumbledore or any other character.
Well, he's here. He's queer. He'd like some butterbeer.
But let's be clear--this is not about whether or not an author should discuss what's in the book and what's not.
This is about the fact that you do not like the idea of a gay Dumbledore or any other character.
Well, he's here. He's queer. He'd like some butterbeer.
#92
Posted: 10/25/07 at 9:43pm
Jerby, that is officially the greatest thing I've heard all week. And it sounds a lot like something Dumbledore would actually say...
http://community.livejournal.com/ltd_brands_suck/
#93
Posted: 10/25/07 at 10:24pm
Jerby, the only thing that's correct about that post is the grammar. Subtext? In your mind. Which is perfectly valid for you. But there are equally valid and different interpretations based on the text.
As for my personal feelings? Hm. You've never met me, yes? All you know about me is what you've read in the column. You are willing to find subtext in Rowling but unwilling to accept my actual text? Consistency much?
As for my personal feelings? Hm. You've never met me, yes? All you know about me is what you've read in the column. You are willing to find subtext in Rowling but unwilling to accept my actual text? Consistency much?
#94
Posted: 10/25/07 at 10:35pm
Subtext? In your mind. Which is perfectly valid for you. But there are equally valid and different interpretations based on the text.
The author's stated intent trumps reader interpretation, so they're inherently not equally valid.
It's hilarious, because it's like a total inversion of the argument against the slashers. I'm fine with anyone wanting to entertain the idea of Dumbledore as a heterosexual while discussing the stories, just as I'm okay with people wanting to consider the idea of Remus and Sirius being secret lovers. Or Hermione being Harry's actual one true love. But those examples aren't canon, and you can't argue that you're more right than the author.
The author's stated intent trumps reader interpretation, so they're inherently not equally valid.
It's hilarious, because it's like a total inversion of the argument against the slashers. I'm fine with anyone wanting to entertain the idea of Dumbledore as a heterosexual while discussing the stories, just as I'm okay with people wanting to consider the idea of Remus and Sirius being secret lovers. Or Hermione being Harry's actual one true love. But those examples aren't canon, and you can't argue that you're more right than the author.
#96
Posted: 10/26/07 at 2:21am
I swear that Harry Potter fans are the most entitled bunch of readers I've met.
"[Gore] was widely perceived as arrogant. If you know something, you're not smart. You're a smarty-pants. It's annoying. People get annoyed with your knowledge. It goes back to high school, to not doing your homework ... 'There's something I should know, I don't know why I should know it but someone knows it and I don't. So I'm going to have to make fun of him now.'"
-Sarah Vowell, The Partly-Cloudy Patriot
#97
Posted: 10/26/07 at 10:20am
ScottyDoesn'tKnow: Obviously you've never met a real literati. Go read some Harold Bloom.
Mr. Weiss, you are positively incorrect. J.K. Rowling's text as well as her theme both imply and support the idea that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. The idea that a three month friendship would have caused Dumbledore to act as he did was always unsatisfactory and all she has done is trim the hedges for us to make way for the sun. You are certainly free to interpret the text however you may (as anyone is with any piece of literature) but you can hardly argue with canon, which is Rowling's to determine. When has the author's word stopped the reader's imagination from flying free before?
Her universe does not dwell on homosexuality in the same way it does not dwell on race or gender identity. Her metaphors lie with house elves and giants to subtlely make it easy for children. In fact, the great victim in her story is US: All muggles, regardless. All people who can be oppressed by those with more money or power or religious conviction. Those with power must stand up for what is right. It's no coincidence that the great unsung hero of the story is the ingenious Hermione, a muggle born who works her way towards skill, who always stands up for justice.
Considering the virtue is love, the villain prejudice, her revelation only brings the books to greater importance. It's sad that so many people, yourself included, could read the books for all these years and miss the boat so totally on what she was trying to say.
Since the book was released she's said that she intends on releasing an encyclopedia fully outlining the Potter universe (much like Tolkien did). She has every right to tell us what's in her head if (and this is crucial!) she is asked. She was asked. Should she lie? Clearly we are interested or we wouldn't be asking the questions.
All she did was subvert your expectations. She never said he was straight either. Get over it.
P.S. She explained the bible verses. It's British tradition, they're British books and they worked thematically. If you even got to the end of the book you'd understand her cosmic philosophy is more grand and human than any tired Jesus themed parable.
Mr. Weiss, you are positively incorrect. J.K. Rowling's text as well as her theme both imply and support the idea that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald. The idea that a three month friendship would have caused Dumbledore to act as he did was always unsatisfactory and all she has done is trim the hedges for us to make way for the sun. You are certainly free to interpret the text however you may (as anyone is with any piece of literature) but you can hardly argue with canon, which is Rowling's to determine. When has the author's word stopped the reader's imagination from flying free before?
Her universe does not dwell on homosexuality in the same way it does not dwell on race or gender identity. Her metaphors lie with house elves and giants to subtlely make it easy for children. In fact, the great victim in her story is US: All muggles, regardless. All people who can be oppressed by those with more money or power or religious conviction. Those with power must stand up for what is right. It's no coincidence that the great unsung hero of the story is the ingenious Hermione, a muggle born who works her way towards skill, who always stands up for justice.
Considering the virtue is love, the villain prejudice, her revelation only brings the books to greater importance. It's sad that so many people, yourself included, could read the books for all these years and miss the boat so totally on what she was trying to say.
Since the book was released she's said that she intends on releasing an encyclopedia fully outlining the Potter universe (much like Tolkien did). She has every right to tell us what's in her head if (and this is crucial!) she is asked. She was asked. Should she lie? Clearly we are interested or we wouldn't be asking the questions.
All she did was subvert your expectations. She never said he was straight either. Get over it.
P.S. She explained the bible verses. It's British tradition, they're British books and they worked thematically. If you even got to the end of the book you'd understand her cosmic philosophy is more grand and human than any tired Jesus themed parable.
yr ronin,
joey
joey
#98
Posted: 10/26/07 at 10:30am
"The author's stated intent trumps reader interpretation, so they're inherently not equally valid."
Heaven forfend I bring up musical theatre on the off-topic board, but this statement (this oh so fantastic statement) reminds me of GYPSY.
So many people think the stumbled 'Mommas' in ROSE'S TURN are about some deep-seated mommy issues stemming from Rose being abandoned by her mother at an early age. But Sondheim has stated, unequivocally, that this interpretation is wrong. It's simply about the fact that she cannot say the words 'Momma's gotta let go.'
So any director or actress can choose to make it about mommy issues. But they would be wrong.
People can choose to believe Dumbledore is straight. But they would be...what's the word? Oh yes.
Wrong.
Heaven forfend I bring up musical theatre on the off-topic board, but this statement (this oh so fantastic statement) reminds me of GYPSY.
So many people think the stumbled 'Mommas' in ROSE'S TURN are about some deep-seated mommy issues stemming from Rose being abandoned by her mother at an early age. But Sondheim has stated, unequivocally, that this interpretation is wrong. It's simply about the fact that she cannot say the words 'Momma's gotta let go.'
So any director or actress can choose to make it about mommy issues. But they would be wrong.
People can choose to believe Dumbledore is straight. But they would be...what's the word? Oh yes.
Wrong.
"I'm so looking forward to a time when all the Reagan Democrats are dead."
#99
Posted: 10/26/07 at 10:40am
Heh. And in reference to the original article, I think the Douglas Adams quote doesn't really hold water since the guy could hardly be bothered to write consistently or care about his characters for more than five chapters. Hitchhiker's Guide is practically unbearable after book three. It's FARCE. It's like trying to care about the characters in Voltaire's Candide.
Mrs. Rowling, on the other hand, managed to pull nearly dozens of characters through 4000+ pages of text, make them all human, give them journeys of consequence, often in the smallest and most subtle of ways. Her world is infinitely connected by karma rather than a stage for characters to amble on and off at their want. I'd rather hear what she has to say on the subject of character.
Mrs. Rowling, on the other hand, managed to pull nearly dozens of characters through 4000+ pages of text, make them all human, give them journeys of consequence, often in the smallest and most subtle of ways. Her world is infinitely connected by karma rather than a stage for characters to amble on and off at their want. I'd rather hear what she has to say on the subject of character.
yr ronin,
joey
joey
BroadwayWorld TV
Ticket Central
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $95
Tickets From $59
Tickets From $170