The Sci Fi Catholic Yak Module
Right. Well, while I do comply with the points you wrote, I'd also like to note that by saying that she "thought of" Dumbledore as gay--by wording it that way--almost implies that, in a sense, she didn't have control over it, or lacked some control somewhere along the way. This, I believe, isn't true. Like I said in my other comment, free will is still free will; at the end of the day, your typical author (and especially great authors) is a craftsman, not a prophet through which some higher being communicates through (where they would hence have "no control" over what they write). If Rowling realized that her text was implying anything that she didn't want it to, she had the full power to change it; in other words, if she didn't want to 'think of' Dumbledore as gay, then she could've changed it.
So, that said, what DO you think Rowling was thinking/getting at when she "made" Dumbledore gay?
My two cents: if Dumbeldore really is gay (even if he never acts on his desires), Rowling must be a poor writer who failed to portray an important character accurately, or else Dumbledore's homosexual desires must be so minor that they don't affect his character.
Either way, the announcement seems kind of ridiculous.
I suspect she was trying for "crossover appeal," so to speak.
Histor
Thank you for spending time thinking about this SciFi. I agree with you. It doesn't affect the books. And the books are now "ours"--the readers. Since I never thought of Dumbledore as "gay", to me, he isn't. And my opinion is just as valid as Rowling's, as this is a work of fiction.
I think we have to be so careful. If Rowling came out and said the Weasley family was Catholic, would everyone feel good about the books? There's nothing to indicate in the text that they are, but what would *we* do if she said that? Wouldn't we, at least at first, think (as the homosexuals did) Yeah! A Good Catholic family depicted in fiction or something like that, even though it really isn't stated like that in the book?
I think the gay reaction to the news is normal, human. But Rowling saying Dumbledore is gay doesn't mean much to me.
Excellent points, I wish I had made them 
The only small thing I have to add is that no matter what Rowling thought about the sexuality of the characters, I think it's commendable that it doesn't saturate the works. We actually have a 7 volume movie/book series aimed at a young audience that isn't over-sexualized. (Not counting fanfic and internet photoshoppers of course.) Compare this to an episode of Lilo & Stitch. Seriously.
I think you're right that many Catholics would react that way, Nancy, but I'm not sure I would. I think I'd say, "Oh? You never mentioned it before." Sort of like what I said here.
Much as I respect you, Histor, I'm going to disagree on this one. I don't think we can say she depicted Dumbledore inaccurately because his homosexuality never came up. His sexuality simply didn't come up at all in the novels, one way or another, exactly why this surprised everybody.
And Xief, yes, Rowling can construct her characters any way she wants, though more than one author has mentioned the phenomenon in which his characters seem to act of their own will, but ultimately they are still in the author's control. I still maintain that authors have a right to construct homosexual characters.
I think her phrasing, "I always thought of" indicates she never regarded this as an important detail. It was probably there in her notes as an explanation for Dumbledore's attraction to Grindenwald and little else. She left it out of the books either because she realized it was unimportant or because she was writing for children (though that detail didn't lead her to hold back on the "snogging").
Lilo and Stitch is sexualized? I mean, I've never seen it, but...seriously? Maybe I'm getting too naive for this job.
Nancy, you have opened an interesting debate that could go on forever. I'd love to see commenters spar over it: is the reader's interpretation of a work as valid as the author's?
I'm inclined to give a reserved "yes" to that. My favorite comic, Bone, features a scene in which the main characters bathe together. Because of the way it's presented, I saw that as emphasizing the innocence of their relationship, so I was surprised to find an interview in which the author/illustrator, Jeff Smith, said, in effect, that he meant the bath to stand in for a sex scene.
John C. Wright once said that authors sometimes miss what they're trying to do and end up doing something much better instead. He implied that works of genius are often if not usually mistakes. I think that's true in Smith's case and perhaps Rowling's as well.
Aw man, now Bone is ruined for me, too?
No, just kidding. But don't you think that really knowing the author's intent is only a product of our current communication age? I mean, 100 years ago, if an author in England wrote a book, no one could instantly know her interpretations (no one might ever know, for that matter) and so the interpretation was left up to the reader. Where I believe it really should be, and where it honestly belongs.
Authors who feel they "own" their characters or act that way are being quite naive. After all, there is only one author, and millions of readers, meaning millions of interpretations, many of which could be perfectly valid, no matter what the author's intent. Don't you think so?
I think the writer has his intent, and I think it's valid, but the reader may come away with an interpretation different from the writer's intent, perhaps better. The answer to this question depends heavily on how much weight we give the author's intent. If when we say "itnerpretation," we mean "what the author meant," then obviously the author's intent has priority. If we mean something else, the author's intent carries less weight. I stand by my interpretation of Bone even though it differs from the author's. In this case, the author read my interpretation and apparently didn't think it worth arguing with, even if most of what I said never crossed his mind.
D.G.D.:
First, a caveat: I have never read the Harry Potter books, and all my knowledge of them comes from other people discussing them. Now that you know where I'm coming from...
If Dumbledore's sexuality never came up in the novels, then why would Rowling bother to announce Dumbledore was gay? The "backstory" Rowling gave about Dumbledore and Grindlewald doesn't actually need homosexual desire, in my opinion. After all, the relationship described seems more like a disciple/teacher relationship.
Concerning interpretation: I'd say interpretation is the - mostly subjective - opinions of reviewers, backed by objective evidence from the books reviewed.
Histor
This may well be the first completely sensible thing I've seen written post JKR comments.
I'm finding folks on both "sides" (meaning pro and anti harry) going to silly extremes (and I don't exclude myself from that).
As far as author's intent, well... if I answer honestly, I'd say "If we're talking about Tolkien, the author's intent matters. If we're talking about some other authors, it does not. And if we're talking about JKR it depends what she says next."
The current "gay" take on the books does concerns me, because the books do not exist in a vacuum, and while I've enjoyed the books, I've always been somewhat concerned with the press and marketing of them.
Do I like the books? Yes. Do I think they are worth reading? For those old enough to discern, yes. Do I think they are children's books? No, though some children could read them (as with other adult books). Do I think JKR was wise in "outing" Dumbledore? No. I'm not going to take what she said as anything more than what she said... and I'm certainly not going to condemn her or even try to form a judgement about what she was saying based on two or three isolated lines. BUT... it is a problem to me, that in Children's literature which had previously been pretty chaste and defiantely "ordered" well ... this had to come out, especially in the way it did.
Regarding the Christian nature of the books, one of the responses over on TheHogwartsProfessor said it pretty well. : (it's a) "work of fictional literature that is influenced by Christian belief"
I don't look at the books as "Christian" the way I'd look at Narnia or Tolkiens' stuff as Christian (or in Tolkien's case, "Fundamentally Catholic" to use his words). But certainly they contain Christian imagery, Christ figures, and some Christian values and virtues. I think that's pretty indisputable. That's not all they contain, but I think just the fact a popular book contains them is such a breath of fresh air that it makes some of us swoon.
So where do we go from here? Well, Scripture says "Time will prove where wisdom lies" (that's NAB translation, sorry to those who prefer a better one).
My own opinion is still forming here, and I'll wait and see, and be cautious about the sound bytes and reports in the media.
P.S. by "this" I meant the original SciFi Catholic's article. Sorry. I ought to know better than to start with a pronoun.
Thanks for those thoughts, Monica.
I personally would have no qualms in allowing young children to read Harry Potter, but that's ultimately a matter for parents to decide and not self-appointed commentators on the Internet like me.
Hi all,
My take on the Dumbledore thing is this: "Bad writer! No biscuit!" No fair of JKR to add things *after* the entire story was published. She was wise to leave out any hint of homosexuality in the books, as that is not an appropriate theme for a children's book, even if Dumbledore did eventually end up living chastity in accord with RCC teaching. I agree that she was unwise to reveal it later.
D.G.D. -- I posted/linked to your article on my blog. Hope you don't mind, but I think you are one of the more sensible commentators on this issue. Here's the URL to what I put on my blog:
http://claresiobhan.stblogs.com/...bledore-is-gay/
Stop by if you get a chance. Merry Christmas, everybody!
peace,
Clare, blogging at Always Advent
http://claresiobhan.stblogs.com
Trust me, Clare, we never mind getting links! Thanks for your comments and thanks for sharing your article.
Oh, and one thing I would add is this: any writer, any writer is going to have some additional data that didn't make it into the book, usually because it's unnecessary. I suppose the question is whether or not the writer ought to talk about that extra information or describe her creative process to readers. Personally, I don't have a problem with it.
Commenting by HaloScan
