The HMS STFU - OMG! JKR wrote the character the way she wanted to! And she's still answering questions about him! W View: Recent Entries. View: Archive. View: Friends. View: User Info. View: Website (JF-less sailor? Suggest a topic here!).

March 12th, 2008

[pyratejenni] Subject: OMG! JKR wrote the character the way she wanted to! And she's still answering questions about him! W Time: 06:06 am

In which sistermagpie pitches a hissyfit Y'know, I'm thinking that petualantgod may have been onto something with fandom's obsessions with cock, given all the whining going on there. ETA:And we got Godwin's.

comments: Poke a delusional shipper

Comments:

waitwut Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 11:00 am (UTC)

My friend pointed this particular post out to me on Monday and we had a fairly interesting discussion about it (the second half of the sentance doesn't hugely matter). She'd originally pointed it out because of JKR's further clarification of Dumbledore but we ended up talking about how it seems that people expect characters (tv, movie, books) to represent something specific. /ramblings on an early morning after a late night.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

major_dallas Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 11:14 am (UTC)

So if I'm getting this right, Dumbledore is too Gay for the religious nutters and not Gay enough for the slasher nutters... so I'd say that JK was hit dead center in how she went with Albus if both sides of the extremes are pissed about him, just my opinion of course.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - cornedbee

princessjessia Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 11:16 am (UTC)

Why has she NOT STOPPED SPEAKING?! Or at least choked on her cake? I was going to chalk up all the missing the point to normal stupidity and laugh at them all, but that is made of fail. I want to shake people who basically wish injury on authors, thinking then they can play with the author's characters without a reality check.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - carlanime

yattara Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 12:35 pm (UTC)

It all comes down to sex, again. Why is the fact that Dumbledore apparently died a virgin such a problem?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - mmanurere

(no subject) - pyratejenni

(no subject) - mmanurere

(no subject) - pyratejenni

(no subject) - mmanurere

(no subject) - agent_hyatt

(no subject) - pyratejenni

(no subject) - mmanurere

(no subject) - pyratejenni

(no subject) - pyratejenni

(no subject) - mrs_bombastic

mcity Subject: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 01:45 pm (UTC)

Because if one gay guy in a fictional culture set in a fictional universe with different standards than our own doesn't get any, it's a blow against gay culture, amirite? /disclaimer; I r Christian "Why make a character gay if it's not going to come up in the books," Wait, there are still people who think there was an appropriate point to mention his homosexuality? Who says anyone but himself and a few trusted friends even knew? "Homophobia is almost entirely about fear of anal sex and of men being penetrated and taking on the "female" role in the sexual act. " Really? Really? Odd how some of the same people who hate generalizations about gays will so quickly stereotype homophobes as being AFRAID OF TAKING IT LOLZ.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - tunxeh

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - mcity

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - esclaramonde

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - sandyclaws68

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - julian_black

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - sandyclaws68

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - victoriabloom

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - harrylovesron

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - chibikaijuu

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - magnolia_mama

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - mcity

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - sandyclaws68

Re: They're reading enough into it for an entirely new series. - quantumreality

vorpal_blade Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 02:21 pm (UTC)

Well, people have already mentioned that JKR only picked DD as her gay character because he's old, single, dead and pretty much asexual. Why do these idiots keep repeating this as if it's true? She simply always thought of Dumbledore as gay. She didn't "decide" to gay-up one of her characters, going down a list of them and saying, "No, too young, he might actually want to have sex, no, she's married, no, he's not asexual enough..." What morons. For the geniuses who think it IS all about sex: No, she's right about that. Even a gay person who doesn't have sex is scary to homophobes. The idea that that person might, ever, THINK about having sex with a person of the same gender (maybe the homophobe him/herself) is terrifying to some people. The actual sex scares them, too, but many people don't need to be confronted with that (just the imagined possibility) to freak out. I don't blame JKR for Dumbledore having kind of a stupid reaction to falling in love once and having it turn out really badly; I blame the character. She created him like this, gave him this flaw (not dealing well with love) on purpose. His flaw isn't being gay and it isn't BECAUSE he's gay; if he'd reacted the same way to falling in love with a great, evil witch the result would have been the same and he would be flawed in the same way. That's why sex isn't the POINT. He couldn't figure out how to make love fit into his life, and didn't even dare to try. (Gryffindor bravery?) It's only logical. The old hero is flawed but Harry, the new hero, triumphs because he doesn't have this flaw. He pursues love and a fully-rounded life and succeeds. The fact that it didn't work out with Cho Chang didn't sour him on love forever. Dumbledore was flawed in more than one way (he also didn't resist the temptation to put on the ring horcrux) but Harry isn't flawed in the same ways. And she did all of that on purpose: so Harry could be the new-and-improved wizarding hero and move beyond what his mentor could accomplish. I suspect that she worried that if Grindelwald had been a great dark witch, rather than a wizard, a lot of people would have figured out early on that the battle between her and Dumbledore involved love in some form; making Grindelwald male probably simply put people off the trail for a long time (even though some people will always slash male characters). It was less obvious. Why is she evil for making Dumbledore celibate for the rest of his life AND gay? If he'd been hetero and Grindelwald had been a witch and he still reacted that way to falling in love would there have been as much complaining?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - vorpal_blade

(no subject) - ms_treesap

(no subject) - yattara

(no subject) - magnolia_mama

(no subject) - esclaramonde

julian_black Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 06:15 pm (UTC)

I thought she'd stopped speaking. Why has she NOT STOPPED SPEAKING?! Or at least choked on her cake? :P Hmm. Why has the person who posted this NOT STOPPED READING THE INTERVIEWS?! Or at least choked on her own bile? :P JKR hasn't stopped speaking because people keep asking her questions about the books. That's it; period/full stop. She's not calling press conferences to tell us more about our Dead Gay Headmaster, or posting additional information to her site on a whim; she's responding to questions people have asked her. What is she supposed to do? Refuse to answer? If she did, you can bet a lot of these same people would be bitching about how all her success has gone to her head, and how dare she disappoint her fans, because she owes them so very, very much... And even if JKR wanted to out-batshit Anne Rice by issuing unsolicited new statements about her books and characters at random intervals, she'd be perfectly within her rights to do so. They're her books, and she can say anything she likes about them. Suggesting that she ought to come to harm for talking about her own work is vile. Holy shit, people--get over it. Go read other books. Go make friends who are not in Harry Potter fandom. Take a night class in underwater basket weaving. Anything. Just move on, already... [sighs]

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - ms_treesap

(no subject) - agent_hyatt

(no subject) - utahraptor

azazello Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 06:40 pm (UTC)

I want to hear and read all JKRs little snippets that she wants to give us. Which is more than I can say for the turgid sort of meta-bollocks being spouted there, or indeed for the OOC crapfic of most of the aye-chorus. /grumpy

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - da_angel729

karmyn75 Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-12 09:05 pm (UTC)

See, the whole problem is that it is impossible for a gay man to be celibate or monogamous. They can't do it. Gay men have to have sex all the time with every man they know, especially if that man professes to be straight. Because there is no such thing as a straight man. They're all in denial. Oh, they might have sex with a woman on occassion for procreation purposes, but they don't really enjoy it. On those occassions, they refer to themselves as bisexual. Women, on the other hand, are allowed either to be frigid virgins or insaitable bisexual sluts. If they have sex with other women, they have to allow men to watch. Or at least video tape it for them to watch later. This helps the men become temporarily bisexual so they can attempt to procreate with the women. And if they can't find a man, it's okay to have buttsex with a woman and pretend she's a man. Or have a woman strap it on and have buttsex with you, the man. But gays are not allowed to be celibate. Ever. Until they turn 50, at which point they get plastic surgery, invest in viagra, lie about their age, or start dating teenagers. /sarcasm

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - da_angel729

(no subject) - utahraptor

(no subject) - karmyn75

(no subject) - imperialgirl

arrogantsage Subject: It's perfectly okay for you to just leave her the hell alone. Aight. Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-13 02:32 am (UTC)

How long do any of these people think they could go not talking about their own work? I'm sure some of those commentors who want her to "shut-up already" have written their own fan fics. Did they write loads of author notes with every chapter? Did they write back to practically everyone who sent in a comment? Did they discuss their work with anyone? I bet they did at least one if not all of these things. Because they like to talk about what they wrote. It's human nature to be proud of your own work and when someone shows an interest, you make yourself available to talk about it. JKR has spent almost 2 decades with her mouth tightly shut when it comes to HP. She didn't want to ruin it for her fans. So she only discussed it in limited amounts. Now it's finally over. She has accomplished her lofty goal and she wishes to speak about it. As long as there are fans who want to ask questions, I bet she will be willing to answer them. Because for the first time she's finally able to discuss it without worrying about spoiling. What the hell did they think was going to happen when the books ended? They should ask themselves if they would want her to shut up if they got what they wanted in the story. I bet they would still be emailing her questions to answer. If only Harry had shagged Hermione or Dumbledore had been a great gay manwhore.... Leave JKR alone and let her talk about her work to those of us who want to know the answers. You don't ever have to read a single interview. You don't have to incorporate anything she says into your fics (that's why they are Alternative). Just STFU, already.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: It's perfectly okay for you to just leave her the hell alone. Aight. - arrogantsage

fallingmallorn Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-13 06:51 am (UTC)

You know, I was going to play Find The Flaw with this thing, but it's just too easy. It's more like Find The Holes In The Swiss Cheese! But look at all the fun facts I learned! Sexual Orientation = Moral Standing! Sexual Orientation = Sexual Practice! Dumbledore views others as his inferior dancing puppets! Dumbledore's love =/= Totally not a part of his character! Love is always logical and able to be analyzed correctly! Love is always within your control! Moral compass = ability to discern right from wrong! Dumbledore is smelly and I don't like him! And the So this is how this doesn't fit with my own interpretation? Automatic FAIL. "Waaahhhh!!! JKR shattered my perfect illusion! She didn't write it exactly how I wanted! And she kicked my puppy!" Aw, man. That was perhaps far more fun than it should have been. XDDD

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(no subject) - victoriabloom

columbi_serpent Subject: I hate HTML Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-14 11:36 pm (UTC)

In which someone follows up. Harry is all about love but the one thing he doesn't represent is homosexual love = homophobia. And then some others. I'll call that one overanalysing and projecting, though I haven't read thoroughly in fear of hurting my head.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I hate HTML - arrogantsage

Re: Sistermagpie et al - silentspeaker

(no subject) - demonoflight

varia_lectio Subject: Just my two cents... Link: (Link) Time: 2008-03-20 03:06 am (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the OP who's first talking about Dumbledore is wanking about it. I kind of think she's on to something when she talked about how JKR sees Dumbledore (as an essentially good person who made a mistake because he fell in love, not because he was an oppressive, manipulating person at heart) versus the way she sees the character acting (out of an innate flaw in his personality, that is, that he was always controlling and manipulative, and just turned that trait from wanting to rule over Muggles to manipulating Harry Potter's destiny). I suppose I'm sympathetic to it because I felt the same disconnect between what JKR said about Voldemort (he's a sociopath who doesn't respond in a normal way to people and relationships...because he's a sociopath who literally doesn't understand love) to what was portrayed in the books (I, for example, saw a great deal of emotion in Voldemort's monologue to Harry in the graveyard in GOF; where he was comparing his father, who abandoned him, to his 'new family' of Death Eaters, who would never abandon him). That scene humanized Voldemort for me. He sounded like someone who was genuinely aggrieved by his father's actions, someone who was hurt by them...and who took that hurt and transformed it into a murderous act of vengeance. It did not come across to me as the speech of someone who naturally lacked normal, natural human emotions, who never felt pain and loss. Granted, I'm not saying Voldemort's not evil, just that I think I have a different take on the character than what Rowling's saying, and I'm going by the text of the HP book and the actions of the character at that time in that book. And I think I see that in the OP's post, and I empathize with it. I suppose in regards to the OP's post, it is a matter of how you see the basics of human nature. Are people naturally good and then become corrupted by others and by society, or are they flawed at their cores? Rowling seems to see Dumbles as a good person who fell for temptation once; it was an act alien to his fundamental character. Whereas the OP sees Dumbles' early desire to rule over Muggles as something that does come naturally from within Dumbledore's personality; that it's something that is perhaps a fatal flaw within him. Those are two very different ways of seeing the world and humanity, so it's not surprising that they would create two different ways of looking at the motivations of a character. And I think it's perfectly valid to examine those underlying assumptions critically. Personally, I find it a pretty thought-provoking discussion and not really all that wanky. I can't speak for the comments, however, as I have not delved into them...maybe that's where the wank is? I mean, criticizing Rowling (or the way she writes, or the way she characterizes her characters) isn't wanky in and of itself, IMHO.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

The HMS STFU - OMG! JKR wrote the character the way she wanted to! And she's still answering questions about him! W View: Recent Entries. View: Archive. View: Friends. View: User Info. View: Website (JF-less sailor? Suggest a topic here!).