The Latest--and Last --Harry Potter...

Remove all ads!

Boy, Chandos, you must really be desperate for me to respond if you’re quoting one of my statements twice. OK, fine. For you, I'll enter the fray again. But just this once.

Rowling

More or less, yes. Although to say that Rowling needs to “support the claim that the character in question is gay” or needs “evidence in her own text to back up her claim” is a bit misleading; Rowling doesn’t have to “claim” anything – it’s her story, and the characters are what she says they are. Perhaps “declare” is a better term. However, if for example she said that Mr. Weasley was an axe murderer, or Ron was actually Superman (copyright issues aside), or Neville was really an enchanted mouse, that would be silly because, just like Dumbledore being gay, there is nothing in the book to support such declarations.

Maybe it’s just me, but if an author is going to reveal outside a book something about a character that wasn’t at least alluded to in the book, as a reader I want that new information to at least be consistent with what the book told me about the character. (And again, people make a subconscious assumption is that people are heterosexual without evidence to the contrary). If there is going to be something that isn’t consistent, I want that revealed in the book, not in an interview or at some book signing event; to do otherwise makes the character less believable to me. And it doesn't have to be stated explicitly in the book; it could be implied, but would need to be clear enough that I would say “hmm, I wonder if…”. Again, this is my opinion, and I suppose it’s what has formed the basis for my position throughout this whole debate.

Now please leave me alone.

[ October 24, 2007, 16:31: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

Demonstrably untrue, as I mentioned, but feel free to keep saying that about me. You may as well have said "I know you are, but what am I?" and given me the raspberry on that one.

I'll just say we're two strong-headed people and leave it at that.

And what is it, exactly, that you're doing right now? I was done with this topic, yet here you are, keeping it going. I even thanked everyone, including you, for the entertaining "exchange of views," conceded - twice - that my opinion was no better than yours, and agreed with some of Splunge's points. But here you go, ever the necro-equestrian yourself.

If you must insist that all I do is beat dead horses, I'll ask you not to do so while standing over the corpse of Mr. Ed with a bloody, horse meat-stained truncheon in your hand. Wee bit hypocritical, 'innit?

Really? Then who said "I'm sure that this came from Rowling's PR dept, but she should know better than to cave in to the pressure to cater to the small segment of the overly noticeable Internet fandom mostly consisting of messed up teens that unfortunately get an outlet for their obscene scribbles on the Internet"and "the fact that I see it as a cheap PR stunt to cater to the slash fandom (which, admittedly, I abhor)"?

If you expanded on your opinion, then okey - but you gave no indication you'd retracted that portion of it. If I mischaracterized or misunderstood your argument, then I apologize. But don't tell me it's not what you wrote. Twice.

I'll gladly concede this one. You're absolutely right, I don't give that group enough credit. Considering her explosion in popularity, I should also take into account the explosion in fan devotion. That I'm not one and don't understand them doesn't mean they aren't out there, and in force. Good point. My brother's a Star Wars geek, I should know better.

I hope you're right, but I too think time will tell. They went after the Tellytubbies because Tinky Winky was purple and carried a purse, for hell's sake. It's not a stretch to think they'll load their guns for Dumbledore now.

I was, until recently, your biggest fan Tal. I guess I'm weird in that I react poorly when I make a genuine attempt to bury the hatchet with someone and they're so petty that they call me a liar and throw it back in my face.

I'm now off to enjoy my birthday vacation. Thanks, again, for the interesting discussion - it was fun, if at times frustrating. Honestly - no hard feelings.

 

Alright you bozoes, knock it off. Take it to PM if you have anything further to say.

... Well, somebody has to step in here to keep things under control. And if it has to be me, so be it - even if it means I'm breaking most of the house rules in doing so.

 

Wow! If Rowling is Hemingway then I better start reading her stuff. I knew by that comment you did not get my quip, Sir Splunge. But it's my bad, cause I should have only included the last line in your quote:

"Rowling is no Hemingway"

Well, for that matter who is?

Nevertheless, that's my point about the internal reality of a story. C. S. Lewis once remarked that what's important is not that a work of fiction follows reality, but that it follows it's own reality, the one crafted by the writer. For a story to make sense, the author has to create a world in which all the characters behave according to the reality of the crafted world.

What a writer "declares" on the outside, regarding his/hers story, is no more or less valid then what an avid reader declares, and it must make sense within the text itself. Or else, the work can really be considered poorly written, or at least diminished in some respects, regardless of the "intention" of its author. Intentualism is fine and dandy in literature, but it only goes a short way, and an avid reader of Rowling, who goes back and searches the text, should have that "Ah-Ha" moment at some point in that search.

Let's suppose Shakespeare announced -- in some discovered document -- that Hamlet was gay. I would begin by looking at Hamlet's relationship with the women in the story, most notably his mother and Ophelia. Then I would would try to figure out why he preferred to hang out with this Horatio dude, instead of Ophelia. I'm not being completely flippant here, Splunge, for it has been suggested in some literary circles that Shakespeare may have indeed been gay, and that a few of his sonnets - some of the most beloved in Western Literature - were really written for another man, not a woman; and perhaps a much younger man than Shakespeare himself. But if I can't find the evidence within the text, then it's really all inconsequential.

Still, I have a feeling that we are agreeing on this point. But we are approaching it from two different sides of the literary issue at stake.

[ October 25, 2007, 07:56: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Dumbledore being gay makes total sense, all other things said and done with the knowledge that Rowling views him as gay there are plenty of things popping into my head that makes me think that it makes quite a lot of sense.

As for announcing it, well up to Rowling but I am afraid that all the same people who wanted the books banned for being witchcraft will get new fuel and gather up a whole bunch of new morons to spin this into the Harry Potter books being about an older gay man taking advantage of young children.

 

Chandos, you’re right – I misinterpreted your quip. I just thought you were being uncharacteristically dense. I should know better.

As for the rest of your post, you’re right – I think we agree in part. I guess the difference is how much of an author’s fictional world needs to be revealed in a book. You seem to be of the opinion that, as long as the unrevealed parts don’t actually contradict the written parts, there’s no problem. I’m more of the opinion that if an author has made the effort to consciously create something in his/her fictional world, then it’s worthwhile to at least hint at it in the book. Of course, I’m not a writer, so what the hell do I know?

@ joacqin

The problem is that the same could be said about anybody. Again, people take it for granted that other people are straight, unless there is evidence to the contrary. But everybody probably has some characteristic that others could point to that would support a claim that they’re gay after such a claim is made. But having that characteristic doesn’t necessarily automatically lead one to the conclusion that the person is gay. And that’s the problem I have in this case. Yes, I’m sure I could find things that I say are consistent with a claim that he’s gay. On the other hand, if Rowling had instead said Dumbledore was straight, I wouldn’t then point to those same things and say that these were inconsistent with him being heterosexual.

I think I'm doomed to be trapped in this topic forever.

 

Yes! That's exactly my point about Hamlet. Much of Hamlet's behavior throughout the play is cryptic (by design). Shakespeare scholars constantly debate Hamlet's rather strange behavior. But now it gets a bit into "contextualism." All fiction is crafted within a particular historical and social context - and even an artistic and literary one. If homosexuality is more widely practiced in say, Elizabethan England, and a large segment of Shakespeare's audience is gay, then some aspects of Hamilet's behavior are no longer quite so cryptic, at least to some of Shakespeare's audience; the actions are in part, but not completely, defined by context in which the drama is occurring.

Joacqin's point is exactly what I was referring to in an earlier post in which I stated that it would "fall upon Rowling's defenders" to prove that she can, with some credibilty, claim that the evidience was there along, and readers just chose to ignore it. Whether it was biased, or blindness to it because of the reader's vantage point plays more towards vindicating Rowling's stance. But you are right: a topic like this can be very slippery, indeed.

Edit: Sometimes the term "historicism" is used in place of contextualism. But I've always thought the term too confining in literary studies.

Like DR, I am leaving for a short vacation as well. Thanks for the exchange, Splunge. It may or may not still be raging when I return, but, in my opinion, it's been one of the best exchanges here in a long time. Thanks, all.

[ October 25, 2007, 20:50: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I just saw this thread's weird turn today -- holy cow! I can't help but put my two cents in on Dumbledore's sexuality.

Despite what Barmy Army said, I don't think the Western world is as accepting of homosexuality as many would like to believe. Many authors and other artists feel the need to support their gay friends because homosexual behaviour is still condemned by many (and I'm one of that many, by the by, and that doesn't make me a "homophobe" or a "bigot" or whatever word the homosexuals use to try to shut down reasoned debate.)

So what I think is that Rowling took one of the most popular and prominant characters in the series and made him gay, to show to the world that gay people can be lovable, powerful, intelligent, admirable, and all the other things that anyone else can be. I can't say I blame her -- powerful figures in the world of entertainment frequently use their clout to stump for their own particular causes.

 

That is rubbish. What are you if you aren't a homophobe? If you don't like gays, you're a homophobe. Just like if you don't like ethnic people, you're a racist. Like if you don't like women, you're a sexist. You're a homophobe and I despise that. Don't try and sugar coat that rubbish m8. Get out more. Meet more people. Open up a bit. Be more liberal. Despite any 'reasoned debate' (hah) you're still a homophobe for having views like that, there's no excuses for it. None. I've no doubt you'll have a few clever little paragraphs in way of a reply, but in this one you're WRONG. In a lot of 'debate' there's no right and wrong, in this one there is a clear right and wrong, and you should know better.

 

@ Chandos (and everyone else) – thanks for making me think. I can’t say I’ve changed my overall view that Rowling’s motives for stating that Dumbledore is gay are totally innocent, but I’ve gained some insight into the whole story-telling process that I didn’t have before. This is a perfect example of why I appreciate the folks here at SP.

@ Barmy (and Tal’s response):

OK, let's look at the defintion of homophobia, according to Merriam Webster Online:

So that's not much help, unless we can define "irrational":

Well, that's still not much help, because it requires an agreement as to what constitutes "reasoning".

I have no idea how to define what is "reasonable", other than to refer to the standards of the day. And with respect to homosexuality, I think it’s safe to say that there is no consensus as to whether homosexuality is acceptable or not.

So based on my general attitudes towards the gay situation, even though I think LKD is being a twit, I also recognize that his opinion is far from isolated, and therefore I refuse to call him a homophobe.

Actually, this I can accept (other than the misspelling of the word “prominent” (kind of surprising for a teacher, actually )). Although I mean this in a positive way, which I am pretty sure is opposite to what LKD meant.

 

Not really, because they don't walk around shouting 'We hate straight people!'. On what grounds do you dislike gay people? It can only be the fact that they desire men, not women. Hence, Splunge's definition of a homophobe, surely?

It's not about 'disagreeing', it's about one side being prejudiced. I react the same to anyone who shows ignorant prejudice.

Most people try to shy away from detrimental labels. If someone doesn't gays and someone else says 'You're a homophobe', the other guy goes 'No I'm not! I just don't like gays'... eerr

I love this one as well "I'm not racist, but I hate Pakis!". Right.

 

Well, not really. If a gay person tries to put the moves on you (this has happened to me before a few times), all you do is explain you're not gay. End of problem, no-one's going to call you a homophobe.

'Sorry mate, I'm not gay'

That's all it takes. You respect the fact that he finds you attractive, he accepts the fact you don't swing that way. End of.

 

I've got out and met plenty of people in my life. To insinuate that I'm some cloistered moron who has no clue of what he is talking about is . . . , well, it's just ridiculous.

To disagree with what someone or what a group of people say is not the same thing as to hate them. To say something like "I believe that if you kill someone you should go to jail for 20 years regardless of race" is NOT a racist statement, despite the fact that in some quarters advocates for particular racist groups say that it is.

As for homosexuals, I do not agree with the behaviour. DMC did a pretty decent job of summing up my position in his theoretical. I believe that the behaviour is morally wrong. The attraction is there for some people, just as the desire to commit other acts that are wrong lies in the hearts of many people. I'm tempted to do all sorts of horrible things all the time. But I don't act on those urges because they are wrong. I believe that some things are not decided by majority rule but are inaliable, unchanging truths that cannot be designed by modern "shifting morals." I understand that this view is not shared by everyone and that currently our societies accept homosexual behaviour.

Now does that make me a homophobe because I support traditional thought? Not a chance in hell. As for promoting hate against them, I never did that once (and this is the thing that's always levelled at people who do not support the liberal line). My brother was a homosexual. Ripped my fathers heart out, let me tell you. Did I disown the guy? Nope! Did I try to kill him or send over some skinheads to rough him up because I thought he was wrong? Nope. I loved him the same as I love the rest of my family. We disagreed on something that I think is pretty vital, but I'm no Nazi monster, and I dislike the huge paintbrush used by some people when discussing this issue.

 

Well, this is off topic, but I had to point it out. I don’t know if it’s the same for everyone, and I’m sure it will change soon enough, but one of the ads at the bottom of this page is for “Realjock – Gay Fitness Community. Great Guys, Workouts and More”

Oh the irony!

Edit - yep, it's changed already.

Edit again - and changed back again.

 

Ah, I've left and returned to find that the topic is still raging. Excellent. Yet, it seems to have gone off onto a weird tangent, because now the argument has shifted to include, of all things, being "hit" upon by gay dudes, which seems a strange literary turn.

Barmy - Your defense of Rowling and gays has been admirable, but I don't think anyone here was putting down gays, as much as questioning Rowling's credibilty and motives in the "big annoucement." I realize that this ground has been covered here, but I fail to see what all this "gay hitting" on those who are not so gay, really has to do with what can be perceived as pandering to a particular segment of readership, which I think was really the main point of the debate.

This notion of pandering, at the expense of not just artistic integrity, but in the integrity in other areas as well, has really become an issue within itself. We live in a jaded and cynical age, where the motives of anyone within the media streams are questioned and scrutinzed carefully, simply because viewers are not really sure of what they are perceiving - what is "appearance and reality" has reached almost a crisis stage for thoughtful individuals. The real question is, at least in my mind - does Rowling possess the artistic integrity to pull off the annoucement to the satisfaction of her readership? The answer appears to be mixed.

I have to admit that I usually side with the writer in these instances. One of the functions of art is to challenge our assumptions of reality. That can be partially proven by this statement of Splunge's:

But first we have to agree upon the function of art in order for my previous statement to be valid. Art - and literature is the highest of all art forms - challenges us on almost every level regarding reality and the appearance of what we perceive to be reality. Writers challenge the assumptions that we caculate in our day-to-day lives regarding what "is." Shakespeare does this so astoundingly well in Hamlet, which is why I thrust him upon us in this debate about Rowling.

But on a more basic level writers often thrive on controversy - and literature even more so than other art forms, IMHO. Rowling's detractors may be right in believeing that she is being provocative on the most basic level with her statements regarding her characters. Yet, if the substance is there in the work itself, then she may be being despised most for making us question what we would normally take for granted as "simple reality," not just in her fiction but in our most basic perceptions regarding "character" and human nature.

[ October 30, 2007, 04:37: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]