Deathly Hallows Reading Group [warning: spoilers!]

[JRosemary]

Hehe--I've read and enjoyed Rabbi Abramowitz's piece before. And thank you for looking up Anthony Goldstein! Hopefully that does mean that there was at least one Jew at Hogwarts

[Ticket2theMoon]

Actually, the ethnicity of each student at Hogwarts (or least each student in Harry's year) appears to have been well-thought by Rowling and is representitive of the different ethnicities found in the U.K. There's a great essay about it on the HP Lexicon:

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-secrets-of-the-classlist.html

The author makes a very strong case.

[JRosemary]

JRosemary posted:

Interesting article, Dan. I was amused by the author's reference to Rowling's "heteronormativity."

Ok--I'll admit it. I was conscious of this heteronormativity throughout the series. Especially after Dudley made fun of Harry by asking him if Cedric was his boyfriend. Since Rowling was so determined not to have a gay couple in sight, I wish she would have left that one line out.

I take it all back. I can stop complaining now. Dumbledore is out of the closet!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/1 ... index.html

Some gay activists think that she should have made this explicit in the book, but I'm fine with the way she revealed it afterward instead. It still gets rid of what I perceived as the 'heteronormative problem'--and the fact that she didn't mention it in the book makes it plain that Dumbledore's sexual orientation was not the most important thing about him.

Brava, Ms. Rowling!

[Pindar]

I can see why she done it the way she did. Shows he is a person, and homosexuality is only a small part of his character.

Like Dumbledore himself said, "It is the choices you make that define you, not the person that you are".

[friendofaslan]

As I was surfing TV channels tonight, I stopped at the Countdown with Keith Olbermann MSNBC show. He had a reporter named Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post who said he was not aware of any hints that Dumbledore was gay while reading the novels. Then, he proceeded to exclaim his shock that after reading The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, it was an allegory for C. S. Lewis' Catholic faith! He equated this shock to the Dumbledore outing.

Mr. Washington Post doesn't do his homework, does he? Lewis was Anglican, not Catholic. Ironically, Mr. Olbermann bragged about a "backstage" revelation in which JKR confided that one of her major themes is "to question authority." (Readers: Didn't we get this on our own???)

By the way, wasn't Tolkien a little miffed that Lewis didn't become Catholic after his conversion?

[Dan65802]

By the way, wasn't Tolkien a little miffed that Lewis didn't become Catholic after his conversion?

"A little miffed" was Tolkien's general state of being, but charmingly so.

- Dan -

[john]

I'll post this here, rather than the general "Harry Potter" thread we have, since most of the discussion regarding Rowling's recent announcement about Dumbledore's sexual preferences has taken place here, even though it was first mentioned in the other one.

I found an interesting article in the Opinions section of the Chicago Tribune. It really sums up my reaction and words on the matter.


Potter fans get the last say, not Rowling
By Stephan Benzkofer

Harry Potter fans, relax.

Gay-rights activists, hold your applause.

Social conservatives, stop your complaining.

J.K. Rowling declaring Albus Dumbledore gay doesn't make it so.

Rowling was taking questions at an event Oct. 19 in Carnegie Hall when she was asked if the headmaster of Hogwarts ever finds love. Her response drew gasps and applause from the audience: He is gay, and his life's love was Gellert Grindelwald, the wizard-gone-bad whom Dumbledore later brought to justice.

Not so fast, Ms. Rowling. This story and these characters are no longer yours to define.

Sure, Rowling created the successful, wonderful Harry Potter series. Sure, she breathed life into professor Dumbledore and the multitude of others who populate the fantasy novels. But when the first reader cracked open the first Harry Potter book, Rowling's baby was off to boarding school, graduated college and left the nest. Harry Potter took on a life of its own. When a book is printed, the umbilical cord is cut.

This is especially true for the Harry Potter series because of its main audience. Millions of children live and breathe this world of wizards. They embrace Harry, Ron and Hermione -- and Dumbledore -- as beloved friends. They own it. These same kids feel a personal affront when the movies change or drop minor plot twists. And in the re-reading, they discover new ideas or themes, some intended by the author and many that would no doubt strike the author as completely wrong.

J.R.R. Tolkien famously denied his "Lord of the Rings" trilogy was an allegory of World War II. Regardless, people read it as such. It wasn't that readers didn't care about Tolkien's denial; it simply didn't matter. The work spoke for itself.

The same is true for Harry Potter. The series doesn't need further explanation. Rowling is playing the part of the overprotective mother. It's time for her to let go. If she had wanted to make Dumbledore gay, she could have done so while writing. It wasn't as if she was heavily edited: Her seven meandering novels run to 4,200 pages.

No, Rowling lost her chance to have the definitive last word on everything Harry Potter when the final book hit the press.

Her options now? Find a magic wand -- or write an eighth book.

[JRosemary]

I don't agree with that article, John.

Rowling may not have an eigth book--but she will have an encyclopedia giving more details about her world and her characters. I don't think she's being overprotective by giving us more information on her vision of the Harry Potter universe.

People will continue to make of the characters what they will--but J. K. Rowling's vision still counts for something. Some people may choose not to dwell on Dumbledore's homosexuality, but Rowling's pronouncement makes it hard to ignore.

[john]

Let me clarify that I'm very neutral about the announcement. To me, it's quite irrelevant whether Dumbledore (or any character in the book) was gay. What I don't like is the simple fact that the author is "revealing facts" about characters that aren't supported in the books themselves. Yes, she wrote them...but that doesn't mean she should go about continuing to develop the characters in speeches after the fact. The encyclopedia she's planning to eventually publish should, I believe, only be about what has already been printed in the seven books. If Rowling wishes to spin more yarns, she should publish additional story books, or leave it to the Fan Fiction writers.

She might as well have revealed that Luna Lovegood has Asperger's Syndrome, Hermione has a twin sister, or that Remus Lupin drank a potion before the final battle and bobbed up from the dead 30 years later to discover a cure for being a werewolf. *shrug*

[JRosemary]

I think I see your point, but I'm still hoping that Rowling continues to give us new information on the characters. In fact, as I understand the matter, that's her intent with the encyclopedia.

Look, I stuck through the whole series, even when I was afraid her vision was depressingly heteronormative. (Yeah--there were always fan-fic rumors about Dumbledore, but they didn't count as much as they do now ) And I would have bought the encyclopedia and read it cover to cover even if Dumbledore had stayed in the closet. But I feel that I'm entitled to a little bit of excitement now that I know the wizard-world Rowling created has room for people other than heterosexuals.

And I'm excited to learn more about Dumbledore in general. And I wouldn't mind learning that Hermione had a twin sister, lol. Who knows? Maybe she'll include little background stories about the characters in her upcoming work...