Re: Who owns the character?
anonymous
November 21 2007, 00:35:41 UTC
I completely disagree. I can be a fan of the characters and the books, but I in no way have any "right" to them. I can disagree with something an author may do, but they have the right to do that.
And it's not something she's just done now. It's been in her mind a while now apparently. When they were trying to translate book six into a script (Which you know started right after book six went to the press), the script translators were going to add some back story of a female love interest for dumbledor. JK wrote them and told them they couldn't do that.
No, I'm not proving your point. I'm disproving your argument that he can't be gay because it's not supported in the books. My argument is that the books likewise do not support that he was straight. The article you posted was trying to make just this argument: "Dumbledore can't be gay, because it's not in the books."
Yes, he was above being hetrosexual or gay. JK thought that revealing his sexuality would have done nothing for the stories, so it wasn't included in the books. However, she did have a characterizationin mind for him. Authors regularly have dozens or even hundreds of pages detailing aspects of a character's history that never make it into the books. But that way it's all centralized so as the author writes about the character, they can make sure they don't contradict something they've earlier stated. This method is especially used by series writers (Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, and JK).
By your statement "Dumbledore was fucking awesome, and then she wants to come out and say 'by the way, Dumbledore's gay.'" That implies that by doing such, he is no longer awesome. So I would postulate that your problem is not with JK "changing a character after the fact" but instead a moral problem with homosexuality in general.
No it doesn't give the gay community a sense of pride. I'm sure the GLBT activists would rather have had Dumbledore "outed" in a book. That way it's more "concrete." But it wasn't necessary for the story, so it was never explained. That doesn't mean that it wasn't envisioned for the character.
And what possible reason would JK have to pander to the gay community? Do you honestly believe that JK thinks "If I tell everyone Dumbledore is gay, I'll sell more books?" She was asked a question about Dumbledore, and if he ever was in love with anyone, and so she answered.
Re: Who owns the character?spunk33November 21 2007, 02:08:44 UTC
I don't have a problem with homosexuality thank you very much, I meant that by stating that Dumbledore is gay, that is bringing him down to a sense of humanity, and so many think of Dumbledore above being straight or gay. Announcing him EITHER WAY does nothing for Dumbledore, he is above all of that.
And it's not something she's just done now. It's been in her mind a while now apparently. When they were trying to translate book six into a script (Which you know started right after book six went to the press), the script translators were going to add some back story of a female love interest for dumbledor. JK wrote them and told them they couldn't do that.
No, I'm not proving your point. I'm disproving your argument that he can't be gay because it's not supported in the books. My argument is that the books likewise do not support that he was straight. The article you posted was trying to make just this argument: "Dumbledore can't be gay, because it's not in the books."
Yes, he was above being hetrosexual or gay. JK thought that revealing his sexuality would have done nothing for the stories, so it wasn't included in the books. However, she did have a characterizationin mind for him. Authors regularly have dozens or even hundreds of pages detailing aspects of a character's history that never make it into the books. But that way it's all centralized so as the author writes about the character, they can make sure they don't contradict something they've earlier stated. This method is especially used by series writers (Terry Goodkind, Robert Jordan, and JK).
By your statement "Dumbledore was fucking awesome, and then she wants to come out and say 'by the way, Dumbledore's gay.'" That implies that by doing such, he is no longer awesome. So I would postulate that your problem is not with JK "changing a character after the fact" but instead a moral problem with homosexuality in general.
No it doesn't give the gay community a sense of pride. I'm sure the GLBT activists would rather have had Dumbledore "outed" in a book. That way it's more "concrete." But it wasn't necessary for the story, so it was never explained. That doesn't mean that it wasn't envisioned for the character.
And what possible reason would JK have to pander to the gay community? Do you honestly believe that JK thinks "If I tell everyone Dumbledore is gay, I'll sell more books?" She was asked a question about Dumbledore, and if he ever was in love with anyone, and so she answered.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment