Umm, you have a point.
I would swear I had written "The problem with that theory is..." somewhere in there. Anyway, what I thought I was trying to argue was that no Slytherins defended the castle because if they did we'd know it for all the reasons I've said.
My memory sucks.
edited 8th Jul '11 9:59:19 AM by Dealan
I don't buy that Scalzi article. If Rowling had expired the second after writing the final sentence of the series, would Dumbledore be considered a gay fictional character? No. No more so than pre-movie Gandalf was considered a gay fictional character. Rowling wanted to make a political statement by declaring one of her characters gay, but it would have been a lot braver of her if his sexuality had been revealed organically in the novels, rather than afterwards in an interview. Giving her too much credit for this does a disservice to other writers who actually do include sympathetic gay characters in their stories.
I guess what I'm saying is, Death of the Author.
Dude, I totally realized he was gay in chapter eighteen of DH... well, okay, when I considered chapter eighteen after I'd gotten a sufficient narrative distance away from it that I didn't want to throw the book into a lake and curl up in a dank corner forever... and I'm terrible about subtext of any kind. It's not exactly subtle.
Applicability is fine. Go ahead and relate Lord Of The Rings to whatever's near and dear to your heart, even if it's World War II. But the perverse thing about Death of the Author is it pretends it was the intent of the text all along. Seriously, I have had a Truther try and convince me that my Death Note filk was actually about how we're all brainwashed sheeple. I do not wish that on anyone else.
Hail Martin Septim!i've said this before and i'll say it again:
Showing>Telling>Word of God. In so, so many of these HP arguments it always comes down to "She said X in an interview."
Well, that's the thing about good writing. You shouldn't have to clarify things afterwards in an interview. You should have made your point clear within the text.
edited 8th Jul '11 11:10:17 AM by willyolio
And what? Exposition galore? Hell no. I'd prefer the story to tell a story, and the interesting tidbits to be in supplementary material.
Read my stories!I never implied that. Some things just aren't needed in a story. We don't need to know the full backstory to Seamus Finnigan. We don't need to know the full backstory to Florean. We don't need to know Dumbledore's full backstory either. It would just weigh down the story.
They are there, and they enrich the story, but putting them in the actual text would severely mess with the flow and pacing.
edited 8th Jul '11 11:13:22 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!Yes, I will acknowledge she did handle that sloppily, but that does not mean the Word Of God mentality is a bad one.
Read my stories!Word of God should be relegated to the stupid little details. When you have to use it to explain central themes of the story, then it's bad writing.
Personal decisions vs. Stereotypes of the house you've been assigned to? Stereotypes win.
Dumbledore: Big Good or Manipulative Bastard?
The value of life and death: Why is Harry deciding to die worth more than the hundreds of teens fighting to live (yet knowing they could die at any moment)?
Love: Why would (dead) loving family and friends want Harry to join them earlier? Why is a child conceived without love grow up incapable of love or empathy? (Remember, Tom Riddle was a sadistic kid before Dumbledore ever met him).
yeah, i have a lot of problems with they way she presents the central themes of the story.
edited 8th Jul '11 11:32:44 AM by willyolio
I think the themes were covered enough. Could have had some exploration but it's fine.
The gay-Dumbledore thing. To me people demanding that it be a part of his character is almost just as much homophobia. Being gay or straight or African-American isn't a key esstienal part of you. Your personality is. Is Dumbledore's personality altered in any key way knowing that he is gay? No. Therefore it is a fact that can be covered if it's important but let's say that Chapter 18 of DH also said "Dumbledore was alleged to have a homosexual relationship with Grindlewald."
Does that affect anything or any character development? No. It's a nice fact but should be supplemental. I think Dean Thomas's backstory could have been cool to see though applied in the text.
How could Dumbledoor being gay be included in the books? It's not like anyone knew about it (except maybe Aberforth and Grindenwald, minus\plus one) and those that did didn't have any reason to tell Harry. I don't see any way it could have been included without seeming forced. And then the fans asked a question, and Rowling answered, you can't blame her for that.
edited 8th Jul '11 12:51:19 PM by Dealan
The reason for DD/Grindle as a sexual ship not being in the text was because Jo was a coward and an idiot. She feared she might lose sales and she didn't know that we all queued at midnight. And she thinks she is so brave and original. DD is dead DD is evil. DD is gay. I wonder if there's a trope about that? Dead Lesbian Syndrome ... Joss Whedon-'s faourite trope.
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!![]()
I rather think that's more of a point in my favour. If the text can be interpreted the same way regardless of the character's sexuality then it really isn't advancing the conversation that much.
Anyways, I don't want to spend more time discussing Rowling. I didn't really like the Harry Potter series all that much, so I'll duck out now and leave this thread to her fans. I originally just wanted to pop in to say I disagreed with Scalzi's column, and that I didn't think his opinion was the only valid one. Also that his argument against Bradbury should also work against Rowling.
edited 8th Jul '11 1:19:44 PM by MrShine
"I'm curious, it you were writing the 7th book, where would you say that Dumbledoor was gay?"
King's Cross scene, DD says he was enflamed by Grindle's ideas, tack on enflamed by Grindle's sweet little tush. If it had been in Rita's book we would assume it was standard Ministry propaganda like extinct Snorkacks.
edited 8th Jul '11 11:35:05 PM by Trotzky
Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!
Not Quite Batman
Don't nobody say Death of the Author to me. DOTA is a smug, baseless, self-congratulatory concept, practiced almost exclusively by people who just aren't comfortable with the idea that sometimes things in fiction don't happen the way they would have liked them to. "Yeah, Shakespeare said Hamlet was a Danish prince, but I personally believe that he would have been the far superior character if he were a spaceman from Planet X; I choose to believe that this is absolutely true and deserving of your respect and there is no logic in the world that can shake me from my belief!"
Now, I'm not pointing fingers at anyone here. But the fact of the matter is, Dumbledore is gay because JK says he's gay. I see nothing in the books to contradict her claim and quite a bit to support it, if only in the seventh book; until then, he'd pretty much been a grandfatherly "sexless mentor" type in the mold of Professor X. I can't think of any non-superfluous way to make Dumbledore overtly gay without derailing his far more important role as a loving mentor to Harry. Making him gay but making his homosexuality not affect who he is as a person is pretty brave if you ask me.
*puts on Watsonian hat* Given how conservative the wizarding world is, I wouldn't be surprised if he had to keep his sexuality under wraps.
edited 8th Jul '11 6:30:37 PM by EddieValiant,Jr.
"Religion isn't the cause of wars, it's the excuse." —Mycroft NextPretty brave? Doing what SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE is BRAVE!?
I already said here that sexuality should not define a character. It's like if there was a straight character who had their whole thing being that they are straight and wanting to bang chicks.
I'm sorry. But that quote sounds like you're saying that the sexuality makes Dumbledore "not normal".
![]()
Hamlet, a spaceman from Planet X? A proponent of Death of the Author probably wouldn't say that because there's nothing in the text to support that view. The whole point of DOTA is that the text is standing on its own!
Also, I don't get how it's smug or self-congratulatory. It's possible to be smug in applying DOTA, but then it's also possible to be smug about the fact that the author said something that supports your view in an interview long after the book was written, even though they didn't see fit to actually include that information in the text.
Aside: personally, I see nothing wrong with Dumbledore being gay and no reason that it should have come up explicitly in the story.
By the way, as the author of this post, I declare that it's about orange salamanders. If you say that the actual content of my post has nothing to do with orange salamanders, then you're a smug, preening ivory tower type.
EDIT:
Either that, or they're just setting a really low bar.
edited 8th Jul '11 10:22:55 PM by Durazno

You gave no indication you believed that...
Regardless, Nikkolas, here's an article for you.
There are too many toasters in my chimney!