posted
DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.
That's not to say that Dumbledore being gay would have changed the story or his character. I'm just saying that the book is where the story is -- not the author's notes, speeches, or intentions.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's almost like executive orders. Does it need to have "executive order" across the top to count? Just be signed by the president? Could it be the president's random remarks?
------
What critical lenses do you prefer besides New Criticism, kmboots?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that new Criticism is a good tool, but it isn't the only tool. I believe that, within reason, there are insights to be gained by understanding the context in which an author was writing, relevant biographical information. and certainly the author's stated intentions and information.
I have no idea where you are going with the executive order thing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only the text itself mattered to English departments, I would not have been required to read two versions of Great Expectations, or lots of critcism debating whether Shakespeare actually wrote shakespeare's plays, or whether Homer was a woman.
If you read Mark Twain's books outside of their social context, they seem racist. Taken for the times for which they were written, they are actually rather progressive. Luckily for us, he talked a LOT. It helps to illuminate some of his points more clearly.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.
Is he also not heterosexual, then?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
And it often helps to know what social issues an author might have been addressing ("The Crucible" for example), or literary conventions of the specific culture in which an author wrote.
And really, kat, I don't want to engage in pointless debates with you here either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If only the text itself mattered to English departments, I would not have been required to read two versions of Great Expectations, or lots of critcism debating whether Shakespeare actually wrote shakespeare's plays, or whether Homer was a woman.
If you read Mark Twain's books outside of their social context, they seem racist. Taken for the times for which they were written, they are actually rather progressive. Luckily for us, he talked a LOT. It helps to illuminate some of his points more clearly.
All of this makes sense in divining more about the author, but what about more about the characters? Why do comments about what happened in the imagined world hold weight when they are not actually in that imagined world?
Since he didn't include an ending or an arc or really even the last part of the story, does that story exist?
(My opinion: David Chase completely and utterly wimped out under the pressure of thinking of an ending and did the equivelent of turning in a blank test. I have to give him credit for not pretending it had deeper meaning, but that does only reinforce my initial impression.)
[ October 23, 2007, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seemed more impolite to just ignore your question to me, but if that makes more sense, I'll do that next time.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, see, the thing with Great Expectations? Do we take the published ending, or the one the author wrote that was not published, but he preferred?
Personally, I liked the published one, though the other was probably more true. So for me, it was the first, because I like happy endings. My professors liked the other. *shrug* The question of which was "valid" - the published version of the one the author prefered, is a very similar one to this kind of debate.
Dumbledore was an old bachelor. She says he was a bachelor because he was gay, and had an unrequited longing for Darth Whatsis when he was younger.
*shrug*
I don't think it makes a difference, and I can't imagine what it would feel like to be disturbed by the news (as my Beloved was, but couldn't explain why- he certainly has no problems with gltb folks, as we work and socialize with several).
I wish I DID understand what it feels like to care about the sexual preferences of a fictional character (that isn't my own- it might impact certain things about their choices, which I might need to know, as a writer). It would make this discussion more sensical in my head.
Writers DO know things about their characters that sometimes don't make into stories. *shrug*
But I'm not going to tell them they don't have the right to answer a fan's question based on what they what they know that they didn't tell us.
If, say, someone made a textual a case for TEH GAY in all those naked boys running around battle school, and OSC said, "Oh, no they don't!" Wouldn't you take him at his word? I would.
quote:DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.
Is he also not heterosexual, then?
Technically, he's pretty asexual because the books never mentioned one way or another and he never seemed to have a romantic relationship with anyone. But let's face it. The default position is straight. You don't have to specifically say that someone is straight. You do have to specifically say that someone is gay.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The default position is straight. You don't have to specifically say that someone is straight. You do have to specifically say that someone is gay.
And if a derivative work is produced in which he is gay, does he then become gay for real, or is he still straight in original books? That would be kind of weird.
Unless Rowling has said that nothing would ever be written about that character again (and she actually follows through on that promise), it seems that she's still the arbiter of such things. The Harry Potter story may be finished, but there's fertile ground for a prequel that touches on many of the past events referenced in the HP series.
Suppose I had an imaginary friend as a child and I wrote a series of books documenting the hijinks that I got into with this imaginary friend. Later, though this was never mentioned in my books, I announce that this imaginary friend was black. Who are you to tell me "no he's not" or "white is the default." It's *my* imaginary friend.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I think the default position (as in factory original settings) is probably much broader than that, even on an individual basis.
That is, I think we are born with potential capacity for experiencing sexual pleasure with a variety of people (of either gender), objects or animals. The rest is largely socialization and exposure. Exposure is how we develop a taste for things, and realize what we like.
I LOVE raspberries. Can you believe I never had raspberries until a few years ago? I liked raspberry filled donuts and raspberry jam, but I'd never had real, fresh raspberries. I wasn't sure I'd like them, even though all signs pointed to "yes". I could go my whole life knowing I liked raspberry sauce, or some such, and never have a raspberry. Or i could try a raspberry and have it be sour or over ripe, and never know that I was really, at heart, a raspberry girl.
Either way, it wouldn't have mattered much to my kids, or the students mentor, or to whatever I've done.
Same with Dubledore. His preference was known to his creator, but not relevant to his role in the story. Seems fairly simple.
Not that I really care, but it is an interesting thought exercise.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious. If she puts it in her (supposedly) upcoming encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, does it then become canon?
Or would any non-novel works not be considered canon? And if that's so, are the two charity books she wrote canonical?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny that people are objecting to this so much. I think if Dumbledore had turned out to be a goblin or from France or almost anything else nobody would have blinked an eye. Why is it so controversial that he's gay? Of course he's Rowling's character and what she says about him goes.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tatiana, really I think most of the controversy is whether it's canon or not, since it was not in the book. I tend to think she's answering questions so yes it is, if she really was just blabbing no it wouldn't be.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this sort of thing is one of the strong reasons many authors don't approve of fan fiction. It's the author's story, and she gets to decide what is and isn't the case about the whole thing - regardless of whether or not it is now or ever will be in print.
Are we pretending that there's no longer any such thing as oral tradition?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course that isn't implied, mighty cow. We are just saying that mediums should remain separate, that is why The Odyssey could never be written down as a book.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: But, see, the thing with Great Expectations? Do we take the published ending, or the one the author wrote that was not published, but he preferred?
I think a good example is Podkayne of Mars. I don't care that he originally killed her at the end of the book. That's not the book I read when I was growing up (which is a good thing, because it would have put me off of Heinlein for the rest of my life). And I won't buy a copy that has the "original ending".
Does the fact that it was eventually published with the bad ending after his death make it what really happened to Poddy? I don't think so.
But in this case, what Rowling is saying is consistent with what she wrote. I don't see the problem.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If she puts it in her (supposedly) upcoming encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, does it then become canon?
Ultimately that is up to each reader to decide. For instance, when I think of the Dune series I consider the original six books to be the true story, and don't lump in all the newly written ones as part of the same plot. Other readers might conceive of the series differently. What is "canon" can vary from person to person.
Otherwise you run the risk of allowing something written in a sequel (or encyclopedia) to ruin a book you love. If the author starts writing things that just don't feel true to you in sequels, it is better to just ignore the sequels, rather than let the sequels diminish the value of the original as well, in my view.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Like Mark Twain. He wrote a series of absolutely awful books starring "Tom Sawyer" and, I think, Huckleberry Finn. They are dreadful - pur pap, and he clearly did it for the money.
We don't take those books into account when talking about the character of Huckleberry Finn.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.
That's not to say that Dumbledore being gay would have changed the story or his character. I'm just saying that the book is where the story is -- not the author's notes, speeches, or intentions.
See, that's the really big news. Rowling is a writer and knows full well that fictional characters don't have character traits outside what's written. So when she says Dumbledore is gay, she obviously means he has his own life -- he's real! And therefore so is Hogwarts! Boy, she's going to be in trouble with the magic authority when they read this post!
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only problem I have with that is the 'we' because I refuse to make absolute statements about the whole of experienceor understanding of everyone.
"I don't take [that] into consideration for x reason, and I'm certainly not alone" is cool.
"No one should ever take [that] into consideration because x authority says so and they/we know more about this than you do, therefore your opinion is invalid" is kind of creepy and absolutist.
Saying "As far as I'm concerned, this has no place here" is not as sexy as an absolute statement, but an absolute statement-- speaking for everyone without acknowledging reasonable dissent strikes me as irrational.
It's a very common and effective tool in debate, but it is seldom the whole truth.
(My reaction to such statements is almost always to think of exceptions, because that is just the way my brain works. I don't really care whether DD even had sexual organs, much less what he might have considered do ing with them, but I am enjoying the conversation.)
What do you think about the Great Expectations example?
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say, it feels different because while I thoroughly enjoyed Great Expectations, I'm wasn't invested the way I am in the Harry Potter.
What I think of Great Expectations is that the two endings give two different "reads" on the book and are two separate stories the author chose to tell.
Which is true? Neither. It's Dickens' stor(y)(ies) and interesting as a text and as a primary source for Victorian England, but Pip and Miss Havisham are not real and never were.
Harry Potter et. al. are, and that changes things. Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I think a child will see a friendship and I think a sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation," she said.
That makes sense to me.
I'm still thinking Dumbledore was essentially asexual in that he led his life as if romantic things were not an element. He was so accomplished and so good at everything - I think if it were important to him to have, then he would do something about it. That's true either way - I figured that he was like monk or a nun or pretty anyone who had an all-consuming passion for a subject that took the place of personal relationships.
And surely the infatuation didn't last forever - he's not an idiot. The guy was evil, and Dumbledore might be dazzled for a bit by the glamor but wouldn't give up a whole aspect of himself for someone ultimately unworthy.
[ October 24, 2007, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The default position is straight. You don't have to specifically say that someone is straight. You do have to specifically say that someone is gay.
His sexuality doesn't have to be a binary value. Consider quantum mechanics!
IF we assume: (1) that the truth of anything in a literary work is intrinsically related to the contents of that work (IE If it ain't in the book, it ain't real!!)
(2) that the truth of anything in a literary work is isolated from external interferences (IE the author retroactively defining a character's sexuality)
(3) the possible eigenstates of a character's sexuality is from the 2-value domain {homosexual, heterosexual}
THEN:
Dumbledore's sexual state can only be described as a superposition of those two states!
Both reader interpretation and interference from the author can be considered an observation of the state, at which point the quantum waveform collapses into either one or the other eigenstate. This observation intrinsically changes the meaning of the literary work (IE everyone interprets stories differently!) and therefore are entangled within the story, causing interference!
It can also be seen statistically:
If we assume that 10% of the human population is homosexual, then Dumbledore, outside of retroactive definition, can be considered to have a 10% chance of being homosexual, 90% chance of being hetrosexual. Posts: 80 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I'm still thinking Dumbledore was essentially asexual ...
Man, the last couple references to "asexual" remind me of:
quote: Cordelia: She's got the big puppy love! I mean, who wouldn't? You're handsome. And brave and heroic. Mysterious ...emotionally stunted, erratic, prone to turning evil, and let's face it, a eunuch. Angel: Hey! What -- how can you -- I'm not a eunuch! Cordelia: Angel, it's just a figure of speech. Angel: Find a better one!
I can just imagine Dumbledore in the background of the conversation going "Hey?! Gay I can handle, but *asexual*?"
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I really liked Cordy and Angel together. They were the most realistic happy adult couple in the Whedonverse, I think. Which is, of course, why they never really got started and didn't last - bad drama. Good couple, though.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But with Great Expectations, one was the story the author wanted to tell, and the other was forced on him by his publisher. (I still enjoyedthe original ending I read best, but the his ending seems more real.)
I think emotional investment is the key, here, along with other people's visceral reactions to the gay. Nobody wants to think of the moral compass/grandfatherly figure as a pervert.
So, I kind of agree with Tatiana here. We may be talking about what is and isn't cannon (as if the HP books are some kind of scripture) but what gives rise to the discussion is more visceral.
For eample, everyone thought the lightning bolt scar was in the middle of his forehead until we saw the stuff from the first movie. All the illustrations up to that point had it in the middle, and the books didn't specify. But in making the movie she said it was to the side, and so it was.
There was some mild discussion of this, but nowhere near the Twisty McUnderpants uproar that has come up over this.
Me, I wonder if she woke up one morning and decided to make the internet explode. (Not really-- like Niel Gaiman said, I think she was just answering a question.)
But I agree with Kat's characterization-- I don't think any of that was a very big deal to Dumbledore, certainly not in teh way he defined himself (which I think Rowling made clear, too).
I think I would really be horrified to live in a world where people defined themselves largely by what they did (or wanted to do) in bed. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't take [that] into consideration for x reason, and I'm certainly not alone" is cool.
Absolutely.
To me, things are canon if and when I want them to be.
To me:
Lucas' prequels are not canon, and the force has nothing to do with microorganisms.
The Matrix sequels are not canon, and the "organic battery" explanation was incorrect. I don't know if Morpheus was lying or just had a really bad understanding of thermodynamics, because there were never any sequels to explain this critical plot point.
Nothing done by Herbert's son is canon.
The Silmarilion, made out of Tolkien's notes and put together by his son, is canon. So are some of the other books put together by his son.
Even some of Tolkein's letters to friends are canon. There are several contradictory explanations of the origin and nature of orcs. I prefer the one that says that orcs were bred out of elves, but that the big difference is that they have no souls.
---
In general, the more I love and respect the author and their universe, the more I'm likely to accept peripheral things as canon
As for JKR, I respect her as a storyteller and thoroughly enjoyed her series, but I have always found her world inherently silly and somewhat dumb. Which is perfect for children's literature -- it's not a dig. Really! But it also makes her world far less real to me, and makes me less likely to bring outside information into my Harry Potter world.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: And Hicks and Ripley get married and adopt Newt. Newt grows up to kick Alien butt. Alien 3 and 4 never happened.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Terminator 3 exists. Since i haven't seen it, it doesn't. But, in the case of a writer, what they say goes. They write the Gospel of the Story
Unless it's a bit stupid.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: mph: And Hicks and Ripley get married and adopt Newt. Newt grows up to kick Alien butt. Alien 3 and 4 never happened.
Yes. I pretend they are and AU when the hubby watches them.
MPH: It's almost scary to me how much we think alike, sometimes. I don't mean opinionwise, I mean thought-processwise.
posted
Just not very informed my emotion, I think. YOu follow a train of thought very clearly, often devoid of optinion or emotion. Even if your conclusions are informed by emotion, you're very clear that it's a choice. Think first, consider emotion when necessary.
I think it explains why sometimes we upset people when we think we're just coldly stating a fact. For me, it usually happens when I'm trying to be funny- people's emotional reactions to things tend to surprise me, unless I know them well.
Or maybe I'm just in a "think" phase. I've always tested (even professionally) as an INTJ (very high on the N and the T, fairly low on the I and middling on the J). I've been thinking a lot more, lately, about why I am the way I am, is all. Sorry if that's TMI.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess what I meant was also kind of a "does it work?" kind of thing, where one thinks toward a goal, but has no problem throwing out something that doesn't work toward that goal, even if you like it a lot. It's a sort of mental ruthlessness-- something I admire and aspire to.
So, if the goal is enjoying a story, it's easy to exclude what does not make sense (at least in the context of the way you see things) or add things which allow it to make sense (again in personal context). Because we can't accept things that don't make sense to us. (At least that is what they say about INTJs, and I think it's somewhat true of me, anyway. I can't say I've been paying enough attention to know if you do or not. )
Scott: "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading about Dr. Who the other day on wikipedia, and he used to be kind of transcendant-sexual kind of guy, though recent iterations have him kissing and. It's puzzling, because I definitely resist the idea that the pure intellect will be untainted by sex.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wasted ten minutes reading comments on MuggleNet.
Oh my stars. I can't believe most of the commenters had the brainpower to learn how to type. *hugs Hatrack*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the kissy-face Doctor(s), but ya'll prolly figured that out a while ago...
And yes, Hatrack is a bastion clear expression by comparison to almost anywhere else I've visited. Including mommy forums, populated by mostly well-educated new moms. It's shocking! (Plus, of the Blues Clues boys, who would ever think Joe was cuter than Steve? *small voice* Yes, most of us on mommy forums need to get out more.) Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It helps to illuminate some of his points more clearly.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
His preference was known to his creator, but not relevant to his role in the story. Seems fairly simple.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't really care whether DD even had sexual organs, much less what he might have considered do ing with them, but I am enjoying the conversation.)![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
