Letters to the Editor
-
Nope.
We can own the book.
We can own our own experience with the story.
But we can't own the author.
Don't like her ongoing storytelling because it interferes with your delight? Don't read them. Ignore her. You don't have to be one of the people who follow her appearances in the aftermath.
As far as I'm concerned, any woman on welfare who started a story on a paper napkin that has caused a million children to obsess about reading, about any literature at all, can sit on stage and tell us she's a cynic really, and there's no magic anywhere, nor God nor Santa Claus.
She owes us NOTHING. There are no Post-Publication Rules for Authors of Fiction. If you find it indecorous, turn aside and flutter your hankie. You'll be fine. Leave her alone.
(Inside it's probably just your disappointment that the reading experience is over. So go read something new.)
She is not harming literature. She is not doing anything wrong. She owns her own brain and her own voice.
-
Beating the fanfic writers to the punch
Honestly, I think she made the comment about Dumbledore because of all the Potter fanfic/slashfic out there. Either she was trying to connect to those who see the "obvious" tension between Harry and Malfoy, or she was trying to beat them to the punch by saying "Well, maybe Harry and Draco aren't gay, but here's a character who is!".
Didn't I read that there were cheers when she revealed this?
-
They are fictional characters
They exist only on the pages of the books. Rowling (or anyone) can say what they want about them, but at the end of the day the only proofs about them can be drawn from the printed page. Anything beyond that is speculation - a reader of the future picking up a volume absent any other knowledge of everything that swirled around it knows only what is between the covers.
George Lucas got around this by declaring the "Star Wars" movies (and one or two other limited sources) 'canon', then authorizing others to create an 'expanded universe' that sometimes is and sometimes isn't consistent with the 'canon.' You can enjoy reading about Luke Skywalker's marriage, children, and reign over the Republic, or not. But the only "facts" about the character are found in episodes three through six.
Comic book publishers DC and Marvel go even further, allowing all kinds of alternative stories about their core characters to coexist. There is no canonical Superman; he's died and he's immortal; married and above mortal attachments, etc.
For myself, Rowling went too far in giving us clear picures of the grown up Harry and Hermione. After all the adventures and magic they lived through and created, I could not accept the idea that they had settled down to become bureaucrats, even in a wizard world.
-
Get A Grip, People!
This is a work of fiction! Dumbledore is not real! Harry Potter isn't either! Getting upset about fiction when the author of that fiction changes the basic parameters of the characters does not merit spewing a plethora of pap. OK?
Now, when Mr. Brethed is renditioned off to a third-world country that worships spittoons and is waterboarded because his fictional character Opus tweaks Dubya's nose...well, THEN you may have my attention.
-
Seriously?
It would, in fact, have been a glaring omission had none of the inhabitants of her world been homosexual.
Hasn't anybody else noticed that Sulghorn basically IS the Uncle Monty character from Withnail and I? Or, more kindly, Hector from The History Boys? (Both played by Richard Griffiths, which makes me wonder why he was cast as Uncle Vernon when he was clearly the inspiration for Slughorn ...)
-
No. Stop projecting.
Perhaps Rowling's decision to make Dumbledore's sexuality explicit was born out of her frustration that few readers, screenwriters included, picked up on her hints, which were particularly heavy in the final volume. The clues were subtle enough, or maybe our expectations heteronormative enough, that -- although it was a question I talked about extensively with fellow readers this summer -- the topic did not seem to get a lot of national critical attention in the weeks after the book's release.
I don't care about people's sexuality. And why it might to some extent help explain a fictional character's personality or behavior in an adult novel, as in real life, it usually just doesn't matter very much (or shouldn't anyway), and not at all in the story arch of the books about Harry Potter.
What is it with Salon's obsession with sex and sexuality? Pure tabloid titillation not unlike something Murdoch would publish. Traister needs to get a life if she really "talked extensively" with anyone about Dumbledore's sexuality. Sad.
-
Children's book
I never noticed the subtext of Dumbledorf's sexuality because I just assumed there wasn't any. This was a children's book and only snogging was ever mentioned in the later books. Frankly, Remus Lupin seemed to be the gay one and his marriage never rang true to me. While others are right that we seem to be on the brink of yet another war and that there are more important things to talk about, once in a while it just feels good to stick your head in the sand and talk about some magical place instead. (Although do write to your representative to impeach Bush & Cheney).
-
I Understand....
....Rebecca, your desire to have a conversation with Rowling a la Tolkien, but that world doesn't exist anymore. Or, I should say, that mode of communication doesn't exist anymore. With the Internet, Rowling's "children", once freed from her head and let loose on a page, are now available in a way that Tolkien's "children" never were. I imagine she is still asserting Authorship as a way of either reining in the lunacy of some of the fanfic or in a truly human way is attempting to keep those she loves next to her. After a decade and a half of creating a world then opening that world to the public, she must be a bit dismayed at the mess the crowds have made on her carpet.
-
The importance of gays in the structure of society
Someone once postulated that the purpose of gays in a society was to provide additional labor to parts of society by subtracting the burden of child-rearing from a segment of the population. That is, quite the opposite of the thuggish reactionary position of some that sexuality is only to breed more little 'uns, having a part of the population not making babies is a positive for that society. It actually helps for the development and enrichment of the human tapestry.
And so we have Dumbledore devoting his life to the higher education of wizards. Fits right in.
As to the central complaint of the article, I actually have no problem with Rowling telling more about the characters. This is the first that I've seen that Ron and Harry ended up as aurors, but I expected as much. That Ginny is a sportswriter for The Daily Prophet is delightful. And I am happy to hear about Longbottom's growth as a character. In writing her series the triumph of good over evil had to be the climax of the story. That doesn't mean that a lot of us aren't still interested in the characters who've possessed us for over a decade.
If Ms. Traister doesn't want to know she can avert her eyes. Me, I'll continue to read and listen.