wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

was the apostrophe button stuck?

Re "People are flipping out about this because homosexuality, particularly in a children's book, is taboo and like others have already said, that is just plain sad... "

Some, maybe most, are flipping out because of homosexuality. Others don't like Rowling cheapening her own literature, not, in this instance, by hinting at future plot lines, but by distilling her already composed multi-layered character down to a single interpretation blurted out at a press conference, as if homosexuality were the explanation for his being the way he is rather than another facet that may or may not be true in the mind of the reader. So readers hound Rowling for details. She's free to play that game all she likes but explaining a work after the fact discounts the need for the work in the first place. Just go to the press conference ; )

"Gay and the authors roll in changing a book after its"

Gay capitalized, two missing apostrophes, and the wrong homophone of role all in one sentence. Ouch!

Re "... The characters exist on the pages as words ... The world created in the mind of the reader belongs to the reader. The writer has no place there. ..."

With all due respect, that is just silly, especially when it comes to HP, whose fans have been mobbing JK at every chance, begging her to reveal more details about the characters than appear on the pages of the book. People love to know what was in JK's head. Take Petunia, for example. JK ended up writing less about her in the final book than she had originally intended, but people still ate up the details and loved to know more about her partially magical past.

Reader's imagination is only "sacred" ground in so far as the author allows it to be. We all had thoughts and ideas about various characters, some of which were proven false when the later books came out. Did we complain? Of course not. Why isn't anyone pissed off that Harry ends up being the head of the auror office? What if I had chosen to imagine him as a DADA teacher at Hogwarts? Do I get to be mad because JK ruined my imagination? I don't know of a single HP fan (and I know many) who was upset about the career choices of the characters that did not match his/her own predictions. People are flipping out about this because homosexuality, particularly in a children's book, is taboo and like others have already said, that is just plain sad...

Dumbledore is not gay, Harry is not straight, and no animals (or sailors) were harmed by Herman Melville. It's called referential falacy and Rowling is guilty of it. The characters exist on the pages as words. They have no actual limbs... won't walk off after the last page. The world created in the mind of the reader belongs to the reader. The writer has no place there. The book is a closed universe that borrows traits from the real world but only as a platform to various interpretations. Rowling can have her interpretation but it's only one among millions.

I'm not quite sure how the revelation that Dumbledore is gay would be considered "changing the book". Since Dumbledore is JKR's character, one would assume that she always saw him as 'gay' and wrote him as such. Just because we never saw him in a homosexual relationship, doesn't mean she tried to pull the wool over our eyes (there are alot of things we never knew about Dumbledore, he was a secretive character, a realization even Harry has to deal with in the 7th book)

I think saying that this information "changes the book" really speaks more to our society's feelings towards homosexuality then anything else, and really I think thats rather sad....

Why should we care if a caricature in Harry Potter is gay? Why should we care if anyone is gay or heterosexual? Aren’t we all supposed to be equal no matter what we like to do behind closed doors? Seems like a lot to do about nothing….

Wow, comment 11 from Steve is incredibly vicious.

I am fascinated by people's insistence that there is no place for sexual identity in these books, because sexuality is never brought up at all. It doesn't take a steamy sex scene to establish sexual identity, and Harry Potter is brimming with examples of heterosexual behaviour and identity. This is evidence of the hetero majority we live in, and it's something queer people cope with on a daily basis.

When straight people refuse to see or to acknowledge the pervasive and widespread references to heterosexuality, in Harry Potter and pretty much everywhere else in the culture, it smacks of ignorance and homophobia, in my opinion. The backlash against the 'outing' of Dumbledore is really a part of this double-standard, where queer people are expected to avoid openly and un-self-consciously proclaiming their sexual identity, while straight people constantly proclaim their own sexual identity without a second thought.

>>> STEVE: This is more a phenomenon of Homo-normativity, that is the insidious insertion into the minds of children the notion that homosexuality is acceptable and to be encouraged. It's sick.<<<

That's really sad. Oh well. I wonder why he'd take the time to post at all -- it'd distract from his cross-burning. Oh, and here's a secret -- you don't need to "encourage" people to be gay. They have an amazing way of just being gay without your help. I'd say there's nothing sick about it, but it seems silly to type something so obvious.

I agree with the person who wrote:

"Isn't it a shame though that this is such a big deal? Kind of shows how in writing, people are always thought of as being a white, heterosexual, Protestant males unless otherwise stated."

I think it is ridiculous to criticize Rowling. First of all, she has every right to say anything she wants about her characters. This would be the same if she said Dumbledore was an orphan or a vampire!

Second, people who seem upset about this appear to be from two groups: one, people who are against homosexuality and think it has "no place" in a children's book and that it is way too controversial or taboo. Second, people who are upset that something as "important" as homosexuality was revealed as ordinary trivia and was not properly dealt with in the book.

I think either approach misses the point. Rowling is treating homosexuality of a character as simply another fact about that character, something that hopefully will one day be the case in life, when we don't put people in labeled boxes because they are gay, straight, white, black or green.

I think that the book is a complete work it and of itself, so by adding information after the book is published, it creates questions of where the piece of art ends. Is it just the book or a book with added conversation?

As a writer, when I participate in manuscript critiques, we don't let the author speak at all during the process, because when we read a book the author is not there to talk to us. All we get is what's on the page. Once it is published, the book is the book. Anything the authors says later, a reader can choose to take with them to their reading or leave behind.

If it were me though (as the author), I would let the book stand for itself. If I wanted the reader to know something about a character, I would make sure it was present on the pages of my book.

I'm puzzled by this whole subject. Rowling was simply answering a question about her thoughts behind the character. Like one of the guests said: It isn't like she scheduled a press conference and announced or "outed" the character. She was just answering a question that was posed to her about her character in an honest manner.

and so what? Does it REALLY change the books knowing this thought of hers?

If you read the rest of the interview, she said she's known all along. When they were making the movie of book 3, the director wanted to add a love interest for Dumbledore, and she told him that would not be possible. So it wasn't a last minute thing.

And sheesh it's a book. I think we're thinking about this too hard. It's like the people who take the Da Vinci code and try to debunk it. It's a book! And she left it out. You didn't hear abut the life of the other characters. Professor McGonnell could be a lesbian. But you don't know either way. To me it's a possibility, but if she never says. Then, whatever.....

Professor Lockhart?? Oh, the scardy-cat for "defense of the dark arts" teacher. That makes sense. hehehe

Re comment #1

Yoda was, like, so gay.

A revision from the original made not by an author but by a director is Ridley Scott who turned Rick Deckard into a replicant, whereas Philip K Dick had him explicitly as Human.

i always dislike when writers say too much about characters, even when a later edition of book suddenly appears with a picture of a character on the cover, and it deosn't match what you had imagined when you read it yourself.
the reader in my mind always owns the character, once its published

whether a character is later gay, is a different issue to me

As a Brit I can say that 'snogging' refers to heavy kissing or heavy petting. It does not refer to 'making out' or intercourse. Snogging occurs above the waist and usually from the neck up.

LOVE your show Brian. I'm a BIG fan.

How is this any different from director's cuts of films that are released after the fact? Or commentaries, interviews, special features, etc on DVDs today?

The author has every right to expand on her characters after the book is published.

It seems to me that the people having such an issue with this are just homophobic.

This is more a phenomenon of Homo-normativity, that is the insidious insertion into the minds of children the notion that homosexuality is acceptable and to be encouraged. It's sick.

It is crazy to criticize Rowling (or any author in such a sitution).

Harry Potter is Rowling's world--we are just looking through the outside. Rowling owns the characters. She created them. She controls them. She can kill them, make them gay, make them Jewish or do anything else she wants to them--if you open yourself to the world of Harry Potter, you leave yourself susceptible to any such changes.

Readers shouldn't cricize Rowling if they are too lost in her fabricated world to be hurt by such a revelation as Dumbledore being gay.

What's weird to me is the discussion of the sexual orientation of a character -- as the commentator said, it's too concrete. I like the mystery in HP about the characters and I like my own backstories. But, also it's soooooo cheesy. I don't know exactly what I mean by that but my instinctual reaction is "PAH-LEEESE!!!"

This was a simple revalation about someone's identit. Finding something odd about this is jsut another example of heteronormativity; this isn't about gay politics or anything else. Dumbledore was. Get over it.

it's lovely that dumbledore's sexual orientation was not explicitly divulged in the series. first off, this series took place primarily in a school setting. as in real life, a teacher's private life is not supposed to be discussed among the students and leaving it out was the right thing to do.
but yes, i had a hunch that dumbledore was gay - he's a bit of a dandy, i think that was the tip-off.

Her work isn't done--there are still two movies to go. How will the outing affect those interpretations?

I think it makes no sense to out Dumbledore after the fact. The reason is that details of that nature, of which Rowling inserted many in her books either as red herrings or as bits of plot that would later return to tie pieces of the story together, need to be inserted while the tale is being told to bolster either the red herring of narrative tie-in. There is no ah-ha moment learning that Dumbledore is gay after the fact and it really doesn't change Dumbledore's character in any way.

Isn't it a shame though that this is such a big deal? Kind of shows how in writing, people are always thought of as being a white, heterosexual, Protestant males unless otherwise stated.

I'm not sure why Mr. Douthat thinks it's so odd. It makes sense in the context of book 7. Also there were other gay characters: Prof. Lockhart in book 2 for instance.

Rowling:"Dumbledore is gay."
Me (a reader): "So?"

George Lucas's updating and revision of the original star wars trilogy is another example of this which has been very controversial among fans. However lucas not only revised his originals, but released three more movies twenty years later which changed our perceptions of the characters in the original three. But no one was gay.