OH yeah,
I can’t wait to read her next book. One that isn’t HP.
Is that like phone sex or something?
Sorry to break it to Ms Rowling, if it isn’t in the book it didn’t happen. If she wants to write some prequels thats fine but until then sorry.
I think she just enjoys pissing off the religious right.
I don’t see anything attention whorish about this. At least, no more attention whorish than writing and publishing a novel. She’s a very popular author, and people are going to want to hear her talk about her phenomenally successful books. From the link in the OP, it looks like this came up during some sort of Q&A session about the backstory of her books. Like most authors, Rowling appears to have created more backstory than she ended up using. If someone asks her about that backstory, she should do what? Refuse to answer?
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think that really works here. Dumbledore being gay is in the books. By your logic, him being heterosexual “didn’t happen” either, because he didn’t have any relationship or otherwise sexuality-revealing interlude.
By my logic his sexual orientation is not relevant. Neither is what is in an author’s mind. Just what is on the page.
At least a few people in this thread picked up on him being gay, just going by what’s on the page.
And, of course, there are some people for whom what the author had in her head is relevant. If Rowling wants to cater to those fans by talking about things she planned but never made it into the books, I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Not revelant? I mean, it’s something to do with a character in the books thought up by the author. Even if Rowling had said something like “oh yeah, when Harry was three he had a stuffed toy called Bob” it would still be *relevant * (if uninteresting). Are you sure that’s the right word?
Now, if you’re talking whether it’s canon or not… I would personally say yes in that what an author says counts as canon to me, unfortunetly for my Star Wars fan-ship. Saying that it has to be on the page, sure, that’s also a good definition of canon. But through this logic you can’t say that Dumbledore isn’t gay in canon; all you can say is that you do not know.
This is what I meant. If you’re an author, you’re supposed to put the relevant stuff about your characters IN THE BOOKS. I feel like there are the books, the films and now this weird land of “oh, yeah-this is really good, but too bad I didn’t include it.” FTR, I never thought of AD as sexual; that is, I never considered his sexuality as pertinent. To me, he was the wise sage who fosters Harry, but must die in order for Harry to learn final lessons. It doesn’t matter to me that he is gay; if it had been explicitly in the books, that would have been fine (but I’ll bet the publisher would have had kittens).
I see the point re the Q&A; perhaps “attention whore” is too strong. But Rowling has to know this particular tidbit would be inflammatory and controversial.
I never heard of Dickens doing this, or Trollope or Christie or even the guy who wrote Lemony Snicket. Back story is all well and good for the author’s use. To drop stuff like this about AD and Neville (lives above a pub and marries Hannah Abbott)–why not write another book?
IMO, Rowling doesn’t know what to do with all her backstory and info. I think she should write Hogwarts, a History, or a compendium of characters with their backstories included (or future stories). Not talk about her books this way.
Readers have picked up on other characters in Rowling’s universe being gay/bi/in love with the squid just from what’s on the page, some from evidence about as substantial as what was going on with Albus and wizard-Hitler. Rowling’s scoffed at the idea of slash-pairings in the past, so I can certainly see why “this character isn’t actually canonically gay, because he is because I say so” is considered pretty weak tea by a lot of fans.
Or just have Rita Skeeter have dug up one of Dumbles’ old diaries in the last one. Having an unreliable source hint that AD was paedo seems a lot worse than having that same source claim that he was romantically entangled with the worst wizard pre-Voldie.
Ahem…
“…I can certainly see why ‘this character isn’t actually canonically gay, but he is because I say so’…”
Stupid me.
Yes. Not relevant. As an author I don’t care what you meant to say, what you were thinking when you wrote it or what you thought you said. What you actually said is the only thing that is relevant.
Gay is in the eye of the beholder. Most of those posts were jokes. He was gay because he had a flaming bird? :rolleyes: Some people can see gay in everyone. Maybe Tolkien thought in his mind that Gandalf was into hairy orc men. Wasn’t in the book so who cares. Maybe it was in Lost Tales, never read that one.
Mandrake’s ?
I still think you have the wrong word. Relevancy means it has to do with something, and this has to do with Dumbledore, even if you think it doesn’t count. Maybe you mean immaterial?
I would say what the author means is very relevant. Otherwise, we cannot draw parallels with anything else from a text. We can never learn any lessons or find any meaning at all. Blood purity/Mudbloods a reference to racism/racist expletive of choice? Nope, because it’s a book of fiction and doesn’t say “Mudblood = Nigger” anywhere. Hey, even more then that; what species is Harry? It never says he’s human. Does Dumbledore have six legs? Hagrid’s got wings, of course. I don’t recall it ever specifying otherwise, and it doesn’t matter what Rowling thought, so of course all those things are just as reasonable as anything else.
So I’m guessing you haven’t seen the Family Guy season opener, huh?
No relevant is the right word. It has nothing to do with the character. The character is what is written in the books, nothing more. If it was in the books it would be immaterial since his orientation has nothing to do with the plot or his motivation (I think, if it actually was in there maybe the books would be different).
I also have somewhat of a problem with this, not with Dumbledore being gay, but with authors adding stuff after they’ve written the story. I mean, how long will this go on? In 20 years will she say “Oh, and by the way, Harry’s real name is Brian because I always thought of him as a ‘Brian’ and Lupin’s not really a werewolf, per se, but someone who merely thinks he’s a werewolf and managed to convince everyone else.” it’s like having the rug pulled out from under you. And the way I interpreted it was that regardless of gay or straight, Dumbledore was, unfortunately, much too busy saving the world to have a love/sex life or to be concerned with such inclinations.
I agree with the sentiment that if it’s not in the work, then why add to it later? And if people are supposed to interpret it anew, why spell it out for them? And if you ARE going to spell it out, why not put it in the book/movie/story to begin with?
I put as much stock in this as I did in Ridley Scott’s long-post-release revelation that Deckard was a replicant in Blade Runner. Actually I would put even less stock in Rowling’s statement as, while the nature of replicants was a key theme in BR, in Harry Potter there are no homosexual themes (unless someone wants to correct me-haven’t read all books).
Not true. You don’t have to read the authors mind or get an interview to interpret a work of literature. People have been doing it for centuries. When’s the last time you talked to Bill Shakespeare? Is it impossible to interpret his works because you can’t ask him? As long as you can back up your theories with actual sites your interpretation is equally as valid as mine.