Much rolling of the eyes later, I have to say this:
Firstly, I’m suspicious of Rowling’s motive for making this
claim in the first place, but let’s leave that to one aside for a second. The main
point which needs to be made is that Dumbledore is nothing more than a character
in a book. He lives entirely between the covers. Once the book is finished and
published, there is nothing more to be known about him than is revealed between
those covers. You can’t start adding further characteristics to him unless you
write a sequel, which Rowling didn’t do. She should know that – and I expect
she does – which is why I suspect her motives.
But of course, the faithful followers will do what faithful
followers of highly popular series always do: clamour for some encouragement, however
inane, to vindicate their delusional tendency to elevate characters to a status
beyond mere fiction.
Harry Potter Lives!
Actually, he doesn’t. And neither does Dumbledore.
And so, if the faithful followers of Star Trek were called Trekkies, and the faithful followers of Twin Peaks were called Peakies, let’s
call Rowling’s mob - be they
disgruntled, rapturous, or whatever – Potties.
3 comments:
Besides the fact that I will defend J.K. Rowling to my dying breath, it is of course ridiculous to discuss (or argue about) the lives of fictional characters. I've either read or seen an interview where Rowling explained that her characters had lives beyond the published stories because she had 'baked' them for years before and only some of the facts showed up in the final drafts. She wouldn't have mentioned the gay aspect in a children's book anyway for obvious reasons, but the point is that the character was more multi-dimensional to her than what we inevitably saw.
OK, the story's coming back: this involved the screenplay for one of the films. The director I think had scribbled something like, 'a past love of Dumbledore' or 'flirtation with...' referring to a female character, in the margin of the draft (sorry if I misquote, this is from memory). Rowling was taken aback when she saw it, because she knew the character better and said, 'no, that's not right, he's gay'- because that's how she saw him.
Having spent years on my latest story and developing character mostly in my head (what arrives on the page is just a part, and sometimes feels inadequate), I can identify with this point of view.
Rowling gets questions on all and sundry all the time (is that the reward for spending decades writing a good story? not sure), and from what I've seen has remained gracious in the public eye. Bless her, I would've flipped a few times surely. Anyway, she's entitled to say what she likes about the characters she's written, whether or not us Potties like it :)
As for the guy who has a problem with it...we arrive back at your point, with which I heartily agree :)
I don't think we're generally at odds here, D. I think the point of the post hangs on one question: did the feature I read accurately represent the manner of Rowling's revelation?
Had she been asked a question about her view regarding Dumbledore's propensity for relationships, and replied 'I always saw him as being gay,' I wouldn't have had the slightest objection. But the piece I read appeared to say that she had announced the fact as a fact to an adoring audience and then reveled in the adulation. To me, that's crossing the line.
I do accept, of course, that the piece might have been inaccurately skewed (journalists do have that tendency) or that I might have read it incorrectly. In that case, I apologise to Ms R and all Potties.
We're not odds at think. Never :) I don't know about the piece you read but I'm fairly certain that the story (the 'outing' of Dumbledore) came about as a result of this discussion about a proposed screenplay. That it would've spread by her or someone else afterward, I'm not sure matters, at least not to me. But I'm Potty ;)
Post a Comment