SFist: Now Here's Something We Never Saw Coming

Jon

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:48:16 -0800

For what it's worth, people are reading a whole lot of subtext that's in Deathly Hallows about one of Dumbledore's earlier relationships and a possible unrequited love and/or companion: http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/16691092.html?page=2#comments

sangfroid826

Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:23:27 -0800

Whoa hey, Remotely, I didn't mean to offend you with the Scalia comparison. I see how that could have been misconstrued. Sorry. What I meant was: He's tough! He's a purist! He's ideologically consistent! Like you! In principle, those are all good things, right? His reading of the Constitution is exactly like your reading of Rowling: the words mean exactly what they say they mean, and if the writer wanted to say more, they should have written more words. You reject declarations at press events as a form of character revelation. It's tacky & amateur! Stick to the words! Right? I just disagree. I'm not saying you're a conservative troll who hunts with Cheney. Culturally we both disagree with everything Scalia stands for, and yes, he may be a nutjob, but he's an intellectually honest nutjob. And that counts for something, doesn't it? (I just couldn't think of a more famous originalist than Scalia.) And I agree, Pullman blows Rowling out of the water. Hands down, no contest. He kills C.S. Lewis too! But Pullman's works are anti-Christian narratives aimed directly at children. I would argue that's exactly why he'll never have the cultural juju of either Rowling or Lewis. He's too overtly subversive. Watchful Christian parents aren't going to let their kids within a mile of Pullman's work. I mean, these guys have Mighty Mouse & Tinky-Winky in their sights. You think America is going to let Pullman reach Potteresque heights on the rationale that he writes better books"??? C'mon. That's why the Dumbledore outing is so significant. It's the thin end of the wedge. Rowling knows the rules. She's very keen about them, in fact. If she publishes a book featuring a homosexual Dumbledore, BAM! the books come off the shelves, plus the sales of future printings taper. (Jim Henderson actually tried a similar rouse with Burt & Ernie. He failed.) But! If, after the whole shebang is already over, if everyone's shelled out for the books, digested the series and put it to bed after 10 years . . . if after all that, she says "Oh and by the way ... one of your children's major heroes is a fag." Then it just sort of hovers there. Everyone knows it, the children will grow up knowing it, but there's nothing a Grand Inquisitor can point to. No real book-burning. Outrage minimal, but damage done, nonetheless. It's genius, really. I just feel as though you're not acknowledging the shades of gray in these culture wars. A win is a win. Lot's of kids grow up wanting to be Optimus Prime or Professor X or Professor Dumbledore. Score on for the home team.

remotelySF

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:48:33 -0800

Ok ok, poorly written post. I see what you guys are saying about subtext, but it just seems like a big detail to leave out or keep closeted. To me it's kind of like outing someone after they're dead, it just seemed more convenient to say it after the book has been successful rather than include it directly in the text and risk more boycotts when it's first released. To me hiding his homosexuality participates in a culture that attaches shame to homosexuality rather than acceptance. Given her own self-consciousness of this issue "if she knew this would make so many people happy, she would have told people earlier," I don't think I'm that far off base. Plus, your own consciousness of the boycotts in the US indicates that obviously this stuff weighs on the sale of the book, which is of interest to more than just Ms. Rowling. And uh, thanks sangfroid826 for comparing me to Justice Scalia, I can see how people would get us confused. Save your venom for someone who deserves it! I guess I've learned my lesson about criticizing J.K. Rowling - dubious comparisons from fellow posters. I just don't believe in drawing ideas from the text, or subtext, which are not actually there to be discovered. Perhaps it is nuanced in the text (and given my unfamiliarity with all 7 books, she could be confirming the obvious and I'm just out of the loop). If it's there, great, I'm glad she clarified it for everyone who couldn't see it. Though honestly my problem is with the treatment of homosexuality, not with her follow up post scripts. And if "One could reasonably envision a tenth or eleventh book that included nods toward sexual orientation" then I think she could have (and SHOULD have) done so and stayed within the genre of children's books. Look at Phillip Pullman's super-popular "His Dark Materials" trilogy. It's fantasy, it covers everything from the death of God to homosexuality to seriously sinister parents, yet the books are still considered children's books, and they're far better written than any of this H.P. stuff.

sangfroid826

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:24:09 -0800

RemotelySF, I admire your commitment to the text. Like Justice Scalia, you're a strict Harry Potter constructionist. No interpretation is necessary. Subtext is for pussies. But allow me to respectfully dissent. I do not follow your view that J. K. Rowling is outing Dumbledore in order to sell more books. May I suggest that the woman doesn't need the money? I also differ from your view that the Potter series exists only on the page. It is, rather, a cultural phenomenon that also lives inside movies, fan fiction and the public discourse. But where it exists most definitively is inside J.K. Rowling's head. If an author has created a fully realized universe (as Rowling has) it certainly follows that some elements are left out. She proved more and more willing to address adult themes (classism, fascism, racism, slavery) as the series progressed. One could reasonably envision a tenth or eleventh book that included nods toward sexual orientation, at which point it would hardly be a children's book. She was already pushing the envelope as it was. Rowling had a long history of burying plot items deep within the narrative, only to be revealed later. This latest PR event is part of "later". You're right. A lot of Christians said this book was unsuitable for children. The glorious thing was that the kids went out and read the books anyway. I applaud her subversive humanistic agenda. After worming her way into the hearts of millions of young readers, she went and sprinkled some fairy dust all over it.

DC1974

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 13:09:13 -0800

Wow remotely, I think you seem to miss how authors work -- they tend to write entire character sketches for each character in order to understand what motivates them -- only a small smidgeon of which ends up in the final work. And frankly -- I don't think this will help sell the books. It's already banned in many parts of the U.S. because of its "witchcraft" -- I kid you not, my mother taught elementary school in Knoxville, TN. along with Halloween celebrations, they were not allowed to read Harry Potter, and many parents didn't let it into their homes. This will only confirm what fundamentalist parents had though anyway: that these books are not suitable for children.

RinconHillSF

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:47:08 -0800

Ahh.. I guess this begs the question, what does it mean to be openly gay?

remotelySF

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:54:58 -0800

This is the stupidest thing I've heard in a LONG time. These characters only exist on the pages of these books, so if they're gay it should be written into the book, not just blurted out at a PR event afterwards. I mean, if you make a character gay, just have them be openly gay in the book. I just feel like it's cheating to give characters attributes or futures all unofficial like that. Uh, oh yeah, Harry had a love child in book 6, sorry I forgot to mention it! Will that help my books sell more?

sangfroid826

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 19:34:13 -0800

"This younger Albus Dumbledore's long hair and beard were auburn. Having reached their side of the street, he strode off along the pavement, drawing many curious glances due to the flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet that he was wearing." --Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

RinconHillSF

Sat, 20 Oct 2007 17:57:36 -0800

Wow, they're going to have recall those 300+ million books ... we can't expose innocent children to old men who love men for crying out loud. Just kidding .... Thank you JK Rowling for putting some gay fairy dust on another pop culture phenomenon. :)