|
|
Post by pigdish on Oct 21, 2007 20:10:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Oct 21, 2007 20:26:39 GMT -5
Meh. It's not like he was rogering Harry in his office all the time or anything. *shrug*.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dragonsrule on Oct 27, 2007 21:07:31 GMT -5
Does it really matter? or take away from the books?
|
|
|
|
Post by grond on Oct 27, 2007 22:52:11 GMT -5
It'd be hard to say that, I mean, if you read background for LOTR, Gandalf isn't even exactly human, or elf or anything. The wizards were all a little bit of their own sort of a race in that mythology. All the same, I can see where that idea would come from.
|
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Oct 28, 2007 11:21:38 GMT -5
Since his behavior is never expressed in the books or alluded to why say it? The only reasons I can think of for doing that is that J K Rowlings wants to create controversy (maybe to stay relevant) and/or to promote the homosexual agenda.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Oct 28, 2007 13:00:30 GMT -5
From a literary standpoint, it is ridiculous, and untrue. Once a word is written, it cannot be recalled. If it isn't in text, it isn't relevant. Given that Dumbledore's sexual orientation is not in text, or even hinted at, there is no arguement for Rawling's position. Besides, it is irrelevant to the story, and sounds to me more like a publicity stunt. Heck, one of my buddies is really into queer theory and never came up with that. If a queer theorist misses it, then I doubt it is in text, period.
Roland Barthes gives the best explanation of the theoretical aspects of what I am getting at in his article "The Death of the Author".
|
|
|
|
Post by Antioch on Oct 29, 2007 10:33:18 GMT -5
I agree with Dmitri. I read every book. There was never even an inuendo or hint in any of the books. This is totally irrelivent to the story as told and is meaningless at this point. Why is this even news??
I wonder if this will add fire to the Lancaster public to try and ban the books again. Why must authors ruin their best works by opening their mouths? LOL
|
|
|
|
Post by pigdish on Oct 29, 2007 10:35:46 GMT -5
ditto
|
|
|
|
Post by kzigatol on Oct 29, 2007 16:47:26 GMT -5
I was just saying this to my husband, The Harry Potter series has the potential to be a classic children's novel, Now she's trying to ruin it by making it political. I agree that it isn't relevant. It's pointless and laughable.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Oct 29, 2007 17:56:26 GMT -5
The thing that I find frustrating is not the homosexual aspect - heck, RENT is one of my favorite musicals, after all. It is the pointlessness of it in light of the plot and development. One of the biggest things that any lit crit person will tell you is that all aspects of a character need a function. If there is no function, if it is superfolous, then don't put it in. Especially after the fact.
The reality is that once a text is put on paper it takes on a life of its own, unless it is a Holy Text, I suppose. Maybe that is the exception or should be the exception. Anyway, once its down, its out of the author's hand and into the world of readers and criticism. To go back and change or add something like this, no matter what it is, is not only pointless - it is essentially an admission that the author did not write it well, otherwise we'd know the missing facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Oct 29, 2007 23:08:41 GMT -5
Well, two things. One, I think it being some sort of gay conspiracy/agenda is laughable. Most prominent gay people who've weighed in on it said it was dumb, a non-issue, or rather pointless since there was nothing in the books- Dan Savage of Savage Love said he felt that the sexuality of a fictional character was the definition of "no news" on NPR.
Second, I don't see the problem. Authors have ideas about their characters, and Rowling is saying what she's always felt Dumbledore to be like. If she'd actually written anything into the books, I can only imagine the hollering that would result. I rather think that the best way to have a homosexual character in a book is for them to just be gay, but to not go around mincing and lisping everywhere. His sexuality does not define, or even really impact, his character, any more than it matters if any of the other teachers are straight or gay. Well, Lockheart's probably closeted, but no surprise there. I have never felt that just because someone prefers one gender to another that they should necessarily act any different- which is one reason people who seem to feel that they need to develop a "gay accent" just because of how they live annoy the heck out of me. Posers.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Oct 30, 2007 6:53:23 GMT -5
Even if its not a conspiracy (which I tend to be skeptical of anyway), it is almost certainly a political move. She has already addressed the religious right on this series, and then adds this, after she explains that it is a series about tolerence.
As to authors having ideas and the like, that's fine - but put it in text. Our bud Dumbly-door can't be anything that is not written in the novels... texts exist independent of the author. Its why biographical criticism is so lame - the text and authors life don't have to, or even can't, intersect.
I'm not asking him to "mince and lisp", but some evidence is required beyond the authors bad interpretation of her character. Once he is on paper, he is out of her hands. Can't be altered like that. It's just the nature of literature. Its not like she didn't have about 5000 pages to develop him in that way, without a ridiculous stereotype. I mean heck - he dances with McGonegall at the ball in Goblet of Fire - if he's gay, why not a man?
|
|
|
|
Post by Antioch on Oct 30, 2007 6:53:59 GMT -5
Well, Lockheart's probably closeted, but no surprise there.  And how!! |
|
|
|
Post by Rincewind on Oct 30, 2007 8:58:37 GMT -5
As to authors having ideas and the like, that's fine - but put it in text. Our bud Dumbly-door can't be anything that is not written in the novels... texts exist independent of the author. Its why biographical criticism is so lame - the text and authors life don't have to, or even can't, intersect. Now that's rather silly. Every character has a backstory, and they're usually not fully written into the main story- for example, you don't hear much of Bilbo or Frodo's exploits as a young lad, the main LotR story doesn't go into Sauron's history, etc. A lot of things came out in the Silmarillion, but Tolkien apparently never really intended for it to be published. So he had reams of backstory, part of the characters' lives and that of the land, but it wasn't supposed to appear in print. It was just his idea of the world. I just don't see not mentioning a character's sexuality, particularly in a series like that, as being a problem. It can always have been part of her vision of him, she just didn't put it into the texts. |
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Post by Dmitri on Oct 30, 2007 21:57:49 GMT -5
I think we are looking at the book in different ways. Bilbo and Frodo had backstories, but not until the book went into print. The point of my thinking is that it is a collaborative art - an exchange between the reader and author. The author provides the print, and the reader brings the character to life. SHe can have an idea, but that is all it is - an idea. It sure isn't canon if it's not in print, and I'd challenge its authority in criticism. But remember - I am looking at this from the viewpoint of critical theory.
My point is the backstory is only the author's interpretation, unless they put it down for all to read.
|
|
