I think I'm going to Salem today. It's nice out and all the Halloween stuff will be out. And Harrison's Comics will be open and waiting for me =D
( Read more... )
hy people are more upset over his gaydom than Aberforth's love for goats is beyond me though.
My issue is not the fact that "he is gay" but more with JK's love of sensationalism with all these "facts" she's been throwing out since book 7 was published. She doesn't seem to be able to keep her facts straight, either. It just seems to me that something like that is a hot topic she seems okay to just throw out on a whim, concerning a beloved character and from a writer's pov, it's completely unnecessary. It reflects poorly on her as a writer on a professional level when industry advocates for the books have been trying so hard these years to try to convince the literary world that the HP series is actual literature and not just pop fiction. Heck, though, she has more money than she could possibly know what to do with, so the impression I get is she just simply doesn't care. Well that's all just fine and good, but that just seems to be a poor way to treat something that has clearly grown far beyond just a single mother trying to publish a story she wrote on a train. It's one thing to say "so-n-so" got married to "so-n-so", because that's isn't paramount to the character as a whole. But something like sexual orientation in the manner she has revealed just ... well, it just taints it. I for one disregard any of her little "addendums" because technically, they aren't part of the story and never were.
Dumbledore's quirks were portrayed as exactly that. To define that as stereotypical homosexual characteristics is just totally unoriginal, cliche, and unprofessional as a writer. Now, it would make sense for Lockheart, if he weren't such a ladies' man ... but the aspects of Dumbledore that people are saying "well it was obvious because who else would be that way" were what made him an interesting character - his sexuality was never defined and that was never needed. Now she turns around and essentially "slashes" him as an afterthought just seems like an insult. I may be basing this all on literary theory, most notably reader-response, but if it were important to know I wouldn't have gone so far as to throw it out.
I agree with you completely in some ways. Rowling's random and sudden facts give-a-way seems more like her saying 'aww, what the hell? Why not!' to me than anything else. And I appreciate the facts she gives out now, but that's mostly because I have a skewered perception of the series. Namely....I seperate into fandom, canon, and that could totally be both and sometimes they meld. If I was more attached to the actual canon, my reaction would probably be a lot more like yours.
Sadly though....I don't think JKR is author of great literature. Her writing style and grasp of plot is fairly amateur to me and while I love her characters and world, I find most fanfiction is better written than her own work. My relationship with HP is confusing lol
But yeah. I always considered Dumbly to be asexual (when I considered him at all. I never liked the man). So I understand your reasoning. But some of the comments I read were based mostly on homophobia and that's what struck me as odd =)
My issue is not the fact that "he is gay" but more with JK's love of sensationalism with all these "facts" she's been throwing out since book 7 was published. She doesn't seem to be able to keep her facts straight, either. It just seems to me that something like that is a hot topic she seems okay to just throw out on a whim, concerning a beloved character and from a writer's pov, it's completely unnecessary. It reflects poorly on her as a writer on a professional level when industry advocates for the books have been trying so hard these years to try to convince the literary world that the HP series is actual literature and not just pop fiction. Heck, though, she has more money than she could possibly know what to do with, so the impression I get is she just simply doesn't care. Well that's all just fine and good, but that just seems to be a poor way to treat something that has clearly grown far beyond just a single mother trying to publish a story she wrote on a train. It's one thing to say "so-n-so" got married to "so-n-so", because that's isn't paramount to the character as a whole. But something like sexual orientation in the manner she has revealed just ... well, it just taints it. I for one disregard any of her little "addendums" because technically, they aren't part of the story and never were.
Dumbledore's quirks were portrayed as exactly that. To define that as stereotypical homosexual characteristics is just totally unoriginal, cliche, and unprofessional as a writer. Now, it would make sense for Lockheart, if he weren't such a ladies' man ... but the aspects of Dumbledore that people are saying "well it was obvious because who else would be that way" were what made him an interesting character - his sexuality was never defined and that was never needed. Now she turns around and essentially "slashes" him as an afterthought just seems like an insult. I may be basing this all on literary theory, most notably reader-response, but if it were important to know I wouldn't have gone so far as to throw it out.
Reply
Sadly though....I don't think JKR is author of great literature. Her writing style and grasp of plot is fairly amateur to me and while I love her characters and world, I find most fanfiction is better written than her own work. My relationship with HP is confusing lol
But yeah. I always considered Dumbly to be asexual (when I considered him at all. I never liked the man). So I understand your reasoning. But some of the comments I read were based mostly on homophobia and that's what struck me as odd =)
Reply
Leave a comment