Well, HP fandom is a particularly fun place to be right now. OR NOT.

Oct 23, 2007 09:54

This has been a wild week for Harry Potter fans, especially Christian ones.

Last week, J.K. Rowling spoke with MTV about the Christian imagery in the books, calling it "obvious," and Christian intellectuals and fans rejoiced at this confirmation of what we had long suspected and discussed ( Read more... )

rant, harry potter, link, book, quotey, godstuff, dumbledore

Leave a comment

Comments 19

(The comment has been removed)

izhilzha October 23 2007, 18:00:06 UTC
Well, there's at least one person on my flist being very UNsensible about the whole thing (which throws me, because we're usually in sympathy, both being pro-friendship and anti-slash), so I'm reacting in the other direction. *lolz*

Reply


kalquessa October 23 2007, 18:03:59 UTC
Yeah, my reaction when mr. Bill told me about this was pretty much "Um...okay." And then I finished cleaning the bathroom. *shrug* Like you said, the books are still the same.

(Of course, I was kind of annoyed about the whole Christian themes thing on MTV, because I figured those of us who were enjoying the Christian themes could already see them without her help and the people who didn't want to see Christian themes were probably happier before she set up the big "Christian Thematic Material Here!" sign. But that's just me.)

Mr. Bill's reaction amused me: "First she kills him, then she outs him. Poor guy."

Reply

kerravonsen October 23 2007, 21:02:19 UTC
those of us who were enjoying the Christian themes could already see them without her help and the people who didn't want to see Christian themes were probably happier before she set up the big "Christian Thematic Material Here!

Not just you. I hate how they do that to the Narnia stories too.

Reply

kalquessa October 23 2007, 22:43:04 UTC
Exactly. We are not blind! We can see the Biblical parallels! Please stop shouting about symbolism, we can't hear the dialog!

Reply

izhilzha October 23 2007, 22:48:55 UTC
Well, pardon me if I (as a Eng. lit. major who still loves that stuff) gets a kick out of hearing her confirm as *intentional* things I've been loving since I started reading the series. :-)

Reply


ladybrick October 23 2007, 18:33:11 UTC
You know, my only real reaction was a desire to reread Deathly Hallows because I don't entirely remember how the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship played out in text. From what I do recall, this puts an interesting twist on it.

This isn't actually the first time I've seen a children's author do something like this. Tamora Peirce "outed" several of her characters through discussion with fans years before it ever came up in the "canon" text. And with one character in a completed subseries of one of her universes, there's a strong possibility that it may never come up in a book.

Reply


jn_oscargrouch October 23 2007, 22:04:01 UTC
Because Dumbledore has always been symbolized as God in my mind, I didn't even consider his sexuality an issue. And she may think he is, but I've been listening to the entire series and no where did I even think about it. Even when reviewing his relationship with Grindelwald.

Reply

mistraltoes October 24 2007, 11:22:36 UTC
This is why I must confess I'd have preferred it to be any character but Dumbledore. If the book is thematically Christian and we have a wise and kindly but also powerful and dangerous patriarchal figure, he usually does represent God.

Reply

jn_oscargrouch October 24 2007, 16:12:10 UTC
The only character that made sense might be guy would have been Sirius, as there was no mention of female loves and he kinda could've been, you know?

But with dumbledore it serves no purpose what his sexuality is, because his character type doesn't require it. It's like saying Gandolf or Merlin were gay.

Reply


feliciakw October 24 2007, 00:55:45 UTC
My reaction is . . . disappointment, I guess. This little tidbit of extra-canonical information does nothing to change the reading of the stories, as there's nothing in the books to indicate such a thing. My disappointment stems, I think, from the depiction that a person (in this case a young man) cannot be fascinated by another person (specificially, another young man) without there being some sort of sexual attraction attached. I didn't stricty draw anything from the relationship as depicted in the book other than they had the same intellectual passions. Maybe it did niggle in the back of my mind that there was something more; I honestly can't recall. But I read it more as Dumbledore being starved for a like-minded friend ( ... )

Reply

izhilzha October 24 2007, 01:00:53 UTC
Actually, I don't know that it does feed into the "fascination must be sexual" thing quite as much as you imply it does. JKR has given us, repeatedly and in many different shades throughout the books, friendships between people of the same (and of the opposite!) gender...sometimes based on something real, sometimes rather out of control (Peter in the Marauder's group, anyone?), sometimes hero-worship. It's one of the author's greatest strengths, this ability to glorify and realistically draw platonic and familial relationships.

It'll be sad if people let one extra-canonical comment make them forget this acchievement, but it's certainly not doing much to mess with my love of what she's pulled off. *shrug* YMMV, I suppose.

Reply

feliciakw October 24 2007, 01:21:46 UTC
Actually, I don't know that it does feed into the "fascination must be sexual" thing quite as much as you imply it does.

Perhaps not. She does do a good job of developing friendships and even friendships that are mistaken for romance (specifically, the several times that Harry and Hermione's relationship is misconstrued throughout the books). But in this case, it's Dumbledore, who has lived a long, full life, and who "oddly" has never had a romance (that we the readers know of. We only know what Harry knows). If I had to place Dumbledore's admiration of Grindlewald into one of the categories you mention (friendship based on A) something real; B) out of control; C) hero-worship), I would have put it in the hero-worship category, based on what we're given in the book.

I'm probably not expressing myself very well, so I'll stop now. As you say, YMMV.

Reply

fpb October 24 2007, 15:04:00 UTC
What ability? My viewpoint, speaking as a male, is that she gets nearly everything wrong. Her understanding of the male sex is primitive at best, and the relationships among the Marauders are caricatural (in real life, such a group of friends would not have tolerated anyone as stupid as Peter looks for a second, and would have been rather nasty to him into the bargain). As for Dumbledore, I said everything I want to say.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up