This is my basic rationale, you’ve got it. Rowling can and should say whatever she wants about her books, but she has to realize that a lot of future (and current) readers just aren’t ever going to know it. If it wasn’t that important to her or to the character to include it, then I guess she did the right thing. It seemed like she did want to, though. Was she a coward for not doing so? I feel like that answer is yes, but I’m not really sure if that’s true or the circumstances of her choice. It just seems like a cop-out way of revealing it to me. There are subtle but clear ways she could have said it. What literary reasons might she have for not writing but, but then telling us all later? I’m honestly interested in hearing them.
Gives new meaning to the Culture Club lyrics.
I’ll dumbledore ya!
I’ll dumbledore ya!
I’ll dumbledore yooooo!
Could you help me with an example of a subtle but clear clue that Rowling might have included? I can’t come up with anything that wouldn’t be out of character for the revealer or not pertinent/distracting from the plot.
I think it would have to be later on in the backstory section, because I do think you’re right about it being out of place in the earlier books, which are mostly focused on the doings of the kids and not the personal lives of the teachers. Plenty of people have mentioned points at which it could have been integrated into the story. If you don’t think it could have, that’s cool. I do enjoy having the information in and of itself… I think I would have enjoyed it more reading it in the books. I like my aha! moments in context.
I’m not calling you a Christian fundamentalist. But New Criticism does seem to me to be fundamentalist in nature. Or maybe literalist is a better word? Maybe I’m not doing a good job of communicating what I mean, but New Criticism seems a very narrow way of analyzing a work and only looking at a work that way is very limiting. Almost as if the written work is some sort of holy writ. It just seems odd that anything that JKR answers verbally doesn’t count unless she works it into some sort of story. I’m still curious at what point it gets codified? On publication? A story she writes that only her kids read? Is there a minimum length? Can she verbally tell a story and have it transcribed later? The interview now appears in print, why doesn’t that count?
To be honest, this really seems like a very dogmatic use of New Criticism.
But it doesn’t fundamentally alter the books.
Here’s an interesting comment from Neil Gaiman on the subject.
- She didn’t put it in the text because the books are written from Harry’s point of view, and we don’t know the sexual orientations of any of the professors while they are professors.
- She was asked a question. On that subject, I’d like to have you answer Arnold Winkelreid’s question about how, in your opinion, she could have answered the question so as to properly propitiate the Gods of New Criticism.
We find out backstory that does reveal sexual orientation for several of the teachers.
The Gods of New Criticism? WTF? It’s just one way of looking at literature, one that I prefer because it avoids all this fanboy wankery that I personally find irritating. I don’t expect you to agree with it, but you could stop riding my ass for daring to disagree with the way Rowling handled it. How could she have answered the question? How about not needing to be asked it in the first place because it’s in the books? I know that’s not going to satisfy you as an answer, but it’s my answer.
I like how the author’s own interpretation is now “fanboy wankery.”
Most of this thread is fanboy wankery, as is what I feel is avoided by a New Critical perspective on literature. What you’re doing is just sticking around a thread about books you haven’t read to fuck with me. Get a life.
Because she thought that emphasizing it in her book was not important or essential to the way she wanted to tell the story? Or maybe she thought that she had made it clear in a subtle way, but failed? I’ve seen some interviews where she has said “I thought this was clear in the story, and I’m surprised that no one figured it out.” There is the danger, when being the author, of knowing so much that what seems obvious to you is not obvious to other people.
I’m not a writer so that’s the best guess I can give you.
Though of course I could approach it in a different way and ask you the question - what are the literary or plot reasons that she would have for including it in the book? I’m putting aside what I call the “advancing gay rights” reason. I don’t think I’ve ever heard her say that she wants to be a champion of gay rights, and I’m not going to fault her if that’s not something that she feels strongly enough about to include as a didactic point in her books.
There are plenty of important characters about which she was silent concerning romantic matters or sexual preference, one of the major ones being Sirius Black, but including Mad-Eye Moody, Professor McGonagall, Dorothy Umbridge, Gilderoy Lockhart, Peter Pettigrew, Neville Longbottom, Luna Lovegood, etc. If someone had asked her about the love life of any of those characters I am sure she would also have had something to say, and some of them might be gay, and some may not.
I think this is dodging the issue. These are books written for children (even though many young adults and older adults - I’m one of them - have read them and enjoy them.) Children are insatiably curious. She has created many involving characters and tried to create a realistic set of rules that apply to this world. If she had revealed that Dumbledore is gay, then people would be asking other questions about other characters - Is Sirius gay? Did McGonagall have children? Will George Weasley ever get married? Did Fred and Angelina ever date? Did Dudley have a girlfriend? Will Harry ever meet the Dursleys as an adult? Did Cho Chang and Cedric Diggory have sex? And on and on.
P.S. I’m not sure what exactly entitles one to the rank of “fanboy wanker” but if by that it’s meant someone who is interested in finding out and discussing trivial details of a fantasy series then sign me up.
Of course, and she’s going to have to stop answering those questions at some point, right? OR will she be clarifying and amplifying Harry Potter for the rest of her life? And will everyone be following all her little revelations as long as she wants to string them out? I find it to be pandering to the fans (who love to wank) and prolonging the titillation of the books. If she still wants to talk about it so much, write another book.
If other people enjoy this sort of thing, cool. I find it aggravating. I feel like she’s trying to tamper with my experience of the books by doing this. I thought that I was allowed to express my opinions here without such a high level of venom. It’s been an interesting experience.
ETA: If wanking is your thing, go to. Hey, to each his own, right?
Actually, I’m sticking around because I’m interested in the subject and still willing to debate it. Any time you want to re-engage, my last post on the subject is still there, waiting for your response. I’m confident that I can defend my position despite not having read the books, as nothing in my position is dependent on the content of said books.
Well, I simply disagree. As I said earlier, Dumbledore changes from someone who Does What’s Right (opposed Grindlewald) because he ultimately comes to the conclusion that it is right to someone who conceivably opposed Grindlewald because he’s a spurned lover, and by coincidence Does What’s Right.
This is why I see it as more than backstory…this is important. It matters. Even Rowling said it’s Dumbledore’s Great Tragedy…which means it’s what shaped and made him. How can that not alter how we perceive Dumbledore and rethink his motivations and actions? How can that *not * alter our perception of the book?
Here’s a helpful guide:
“Analysis” = the author imagined Dumbledore as gay; how does that affect your understanding of the motivations of the characters?
“Wankery” = the author imagined Dumbledore as gay; let’s write about how Dumbledore really initiates Harry into the “Order” using his special “wand”!
Rubystreak - this is tampering with your experience with the books only if you allow it to. Don’t read new articles discussing the latest HP revelations form JK Rowling if you don’t want to.
How long will fans be asking questions? How long will JK Rowling answer them? I don’t know, and honestly I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about it. As someone who enjoyed the series, I’m happy that she’s willing to answer reader’s questions.
I don’t see it that way. I thought from reading the books that it was supposed to be a tragedy for Dumbledore, without knowing about the sexual attraction. This is finally someone as smart as he is, someone he is planning on changing the world with, an equal. And this person ends up killing his sister, or causing Albus to kill his sister. Then Albus’ great friend cowardly runs away because he fears to face the consequence of his actions, and abandons Dumbledore when Albus could really use a friend. Isn’t that tragic enough?
To take another example, if Ron died in Book 7, I think that would have been just as traumatic for Harry than if Ginny died.
Eh, you know how it is, people send you the link in a forward, they write about it in their blogs, your students say, “Hey Ms. Rubystreak, guess what? Dumbledore is GAY!” It’s on your Yahoo! news page… there’s no escaping it. It’s part of the culture now. It’s certainly not as important to me as it might seem based on the number of my posts to this thread. It’s just a pet peeve of mine when authors do this. And, even more annoyingly, of course I’m INTERESTED in this backstory at the same time I’m aggravated by it. It’s why I resisted reading the series for so long, not wanting to get sucked into the crazy fandom. A lot of my perspective in this particular case comes from my association with her fan base, ie., my students.