Literature

(Downward Spiral/28190) Iron Druid> I actually picked it up recently at the library and ...

Downward Spiral@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 07:06:00 -0600

Iron Druid> I actually picked it up recently at the library and enjoyed it.
kind of Terry Pratchet ireverence combined with Jim Butchers magic and
mythilogical adventurness. Looking forward to the new book out early this year.

(Feoh/28189) Let me know what you think when you do, whenever that might be :...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:28:00 -0600

Let me know what you think when you do, whenever that might be :)

(Nightspawn/28188) Feoh>

Nightspawn@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:28:00 -0600

Feoh>
Just added Iron Druid to my list of books to read because of your little blurb.
Thanks in advance, whenever I get around to reading it. :)

(Feoh/28185) I am now horribly addicted to the Iron Druid books by Kevin Hear...

Feoh@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:03:00 -0600

I am now horribly addicted to the Iron Druid books by Kevin Hearne.  Haven't
laughed this much or been so hooked since the Dresden Files.

(Knightshade/28184) and you definitely want to read the Jack Ryan ones in order, as ...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 02:53:00 -0600

and you definitely want to read the Jack Ryan ones in order, as they take place
over time where events in past books directly impact later ones (different
people in different jobs, impacts of wars and other events, etc)

(Kena/28183) "Separate series" ain't even close -- they're written with his n...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 02:47:00 -0600

"Separate series" ain't even close -- they're written with his name on the
cover, and, as I understand it, that's it.  The ones listed by date in the
bibliography are his, at least until he started "co-writing."  And I admit, I
just can't *not* read them; it's like an addiction.  I haven't thoroughly
*enjoyed* one since... (damn) maybe Sum of All Fears.  And Rainbow Six was
easily his most jingoistic; if that kind of stuff doesn't float your boat, you
might consider skipping it -- you won't miss much.

(Nightspawn/28182) Tom Clancy

Nightspawn@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:07:00 -0600

Tom Clancy

I read a few of the Jack Ryan novels way back (Red October, Patriot, Cardinal).
Been working my way through my reading list and I'm back to Clancy.  I see he
has a ton of books out now I didn't know about back then or are new since then.
Should I read this in a specific order?  Wikipedia has them listed
chronologically but do the Jack Ryan books ever crossover with Op-Center and
NetForce stuff or are those easily read as separate series?

(Steppenwolf/28181) I think that to assume Dumbledore's homosexuality would be an in...

Steppenwolf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 06:08:00 -0600

I think that to assume Dumbledore's homosexuality would be an inevitable part
of his life, to the point that it would show up in a relationship with a kid,
is to assume a LOT about the wizarding culture. In our culture, with the
attendant alienation from being a discriminated-against minority, there's a lot
of attention given to it, so you can't walk away from it. But among wizards?
Maybe not.

(Danix/28180) Dumbledore being gay makes sense given the context of book 7. Pr...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 05:14:00 -0600

Dumbledore being gay makes sense given the context of book 7. Previous books
didn't delve in Dumbledore's story, so anyone who hadn't read book 7 before
JKR's "Dumbledore is teh ghey" would perceive it as a tack-on.

(Kena/28178) "Leaving out" != "alter". I don't mind leaving out -- as I said...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 01:06:00 -0600

"Leaving out" != "alter".  I don't mind leaving out -- as I said, I can't
expect that they'd contain everything.  Completely altering (say) the
experience at Bree -- the true beginning of things altered -- is the kind of
thing that bugs me.  Bree was meant to be a fun experience, highlighting how
unpleasant Bill Ferny was, how mysterious Strider was, and how scary the Nazgul
were; it was supposed to be one of the few places where big folk and little
folk blended and thought each other peers.  Instead, it was played from the
get-go for being unpleasant, Strider didn't even have his birthright sword
(identified in verse as a form of identity in a letter left by Gandalf), etc.

(Gwynn/28177) I think what was weirdest to me about the films, aside from the ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:48:00 -0600

I think what was weirdest to me about the films, aside from the degeneration of
faithfulness to the books the longer they went on, is the shifts they made. I
don't just mean that they threw stuff in about Arwen, or made her say things
other people said. I mean like, Theoden would say something in the books, and
in the movie it was twelve scenes later and Gandalf said it. It's like, OK,
you're going to accurately give the dialogue, why the hell did that person say
it then? I don't have any examples off the top of my head, but it's all over
the place. And I don't think any of it was explainable by the film structure,
as opposed to a book.

(King In Yellow/28176) they also left out the dunlendings

King In Yellow@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:12:00 -0600

they also left out the dunlendings

(Giraffe/28175) Books and films don't always have the same structure, nor should...

Giraffe@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:31:00 -0600

Books and films don't always have the same structure, nor should they. The Tom
Bombadil episode was fun but would have been a distraction from the already
complex storyline of the LOTR. There are a couple of allusions to Bombadil in
Jackson's films, however.  Another change from the books is that the Hobbits do
not return to the pillaged shire and expell Sharky and fellow villians. Again,
this was acceptable since the narrative of the film can't handle such a long
epilogue following the epic battles that have already been fought. But there is
an allusion to the scouring of the Shire in the scene where Frodo looks into
Galadriel's mirror.

(Odd/28174) I haven't really payed attention to what level the plot lines we...

Odd@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 01:16:00 -0600

I haven't really payed attention to what level the plot lines were actually
changed.  It was a while ago that I had read the books when I saw the movies,
perhaps that was a good thing.  I do remember missing Tom Bombadil, and of
course several sections being severely shortened.

Thanks for giving me a good excuse to go read the books again AND whatch the
movies again :-)

(Kena/28173) sigh I wanted to like the movies, I swear. And I knew th...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 14:49:00 -0600

*sigh*  I *wanted* to like the movies, I swear.  And I *knew* they wouldn't be
the same -- I mean, you can't cram 1500-odd pages into three movies without
stuff missing.  But *changing* plot lines, that, I had issues with.  To the
point where I did the same with them as I did with the second batch of Star
Wars: once, and done.  So I'm afraid I wasn't in a state to remember them very
well.  I suppose some day, I'll have to get around to that.

(Odd/28172) Kena> In LOTR I never noticed anything about Sam and Frodo unti...

Odd@rss.iscabbs.com — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:22:00 -0600

Kena>  In LOTR I never noticed anything about Sam and Frodo until I saw the
movies.  I don't think I've read the book since, but it will be interesting to
see if that's changed now.

(Fafaf/28171) Car accident. Rowlings also said that James Potter's parents die...

Fafaf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:42:00 -0600

Car accident. Rowlings also said that James Potter's parents died of
non-Voldemort related events, although I never remember her specifying what
they were.

(Smoke Eater/28170) How did Harry's Muggle grandparents die?

Smoke Eater@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:40:00 -0600

How did Harry's Muggle grandparents die?

(Fafaf/28169) Well, Lochner, let me drop the only part of my point you answere...

Fafaf@rss.iscabbs.com — Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:39:00 -0600

Well, Lochner, let me drop the only part of my point you answered 
(whether I would be a different person given a different sexuality), 
and ask you the more applicable question: should the reader always be 
able to tell from the words and actions of a character what his or her 
sexuality is, if the author knows it when writing the story? 
 
Now, Dumbledore could have had a boy-crush on Grindenwald (name?), or 
he could have been intellectually tempted by a charismatic friend before 
realizing the good-evil balance falls against him, or he could have been 
gay and in love with the guy, or ... well, you are a writer. I am sure 
you can see that there is more than one motivation for Dumbledore to act 
as he did for every step of the book. 

However, when I heard that Dumbledore was gay, I thought, "of course, 
he is!" I thought it fit in very well with the character, and, given 
Rowling's known habit of filling in back-story (Ron's Patronus animal, 
Hagrid's wand-wood, how Harry's Muggle grandparents died), I do not find 
enough cause to doubt the official story this time. 
 
It probably will not convince you. I hope you still enjoy the books, 
though, whether you think that tidbit was a publicity-affected bit of 
trivia or not.

(Egregious/28168) Well, Orson Scott Card's works make lots of people uncomfortable...

Egregious@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 06:06:00 -0600

Well, Orson Scott Card's works make lots of people uncomfortable! :)

Most of the sexuality of the adults in the HP novels doesn't matter
at all, except when they get married or widowed.  I don't specifically
remember if they say Minerva was ever married (although I see on Wiki
she's a widow, so I must have missed it) but if she was a lesbian it
wouldn't change much in her relations with her students.

Dumbledore being gay would matter in his backstory and how he grew
up, but he could end up in exactly the same place we saw him in
the first 5 or 6 books regardless of his sexuality, so it really didn't
matter until that point.

Then again, I read most of Gamain's "Nancy Boys" without knowing the
characters were almost all black, so I might not be the best judge.

(Kena/28167) Oh, I'm not saying there was a subtext. But, as an adolescent...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 03:27:00 -0600

Oh, I'm not saying there *was* a subtext.  But, as an adolescent guy, it did
make me uncomfortable.  (Then again, so did Orson Scott Card's _Songbird_. 
Let's just say that maturity comes with years, and leave it at that. ;-)

(Gwynn/28166) Wow really? Maybe I'm just dense, but I totally didn't get that ...

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:22:00 -0600

Wow really? Maybe I'm just dense, but I totally didn't get that at all, between
Sam and Frodo I mean, and I read LOTR when I was, hmmm, fifteen or so maybe.
Now of course I see it, it's parodied all over the place. But that never
occurred to me, upon first or even second reading. I guess I'm not really one
for subtext. Because I always took Sam at his word, Frodo had osmething to do,
Sam didn't really know what, but by the gods, Sam was gonna help Frodo do
whatever it was to the best of his ability.

(Kena/28165) 1) None of the wizards in ME, to the best of my knowledge, took ...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:27:00 -0600

1) None of the wizards in ME, to the best of my knowledge, took up with anyone
-- even the relatively non-nomaidc guys.  Maybe it just wasn't part of their
persona.
2) In all honesty, as a young person, I definitely grew uncomfortable with the
closness of Sam and Frodo in Mordor, what with Sam's loving gaze and whispered
sweet nothings.  Upon (multiple) re-readings, it no longer impacts me as it
did, but I do still kinda-sorta wonder just a bit.
3) Sexuality can be, IMHO, compared to the "loaded gun in a story must be used"
bit.  Irrespective of how it informs the character, once you introduce
sexuality, you have to *do* something with it.  Leaving his sexual preference
out is really the only thing that makes sense from a literary perspective,
unless there was going to be a whole "Dumbledore's Sexuality" tangent -- past
loves, discussion of how it had affected him, etc.  I mean, it's not like
Harry's going to bump into "The Joy of Gay Love" while going through
Dumbledore's stuff.                        ^^ Sex

(Nightspawn/28164) I'll be honest. One of my best friends is gay. My cousin who w...

Nightspawn@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 16:43:00 -0600

I'll be honest.  One of my best friends is gay.  My cousin who was practically
my brother growing up is gay.  I did not get the slightest sense that
Dumbledore was gay until after I had read the books and the whole discussion
started up after JKR said something.  But whether he is or is not.  Does it
really matter?  Not to me.  It was a great story, Dumbledore is a strong
character who is likable and has the best interests of his students at heart. 
In short he's everything I wanted in a teacher and mentor growing up.  You
don't really know if any of the professors are married or dating or not.  Their
sexual appetites has nothing to do with the school environment or the stories.

(Lochner/28163) "Second, I question whether being gay changes a person's perspec...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:24:00 -0600


"Second, I question whether being gay changes a person's perspective so
recognizably as you think. Would I not still be myself if my sexuality
were different?"

 No, you would not.  Your life, views, experiences and psychological
 make up would be different.

 My response to the rest of your point basically flows from this.

 It's a hunch, I admit, and I'm probably hopelessly biased on this
 point because of how I write characters.

"Anyway, I do think that the signs point to Rowling having always meant
Dumbledore to be gay, and, similarly, always meant it to affect
backstory only, not the current Harry-Potter plot. "

  It doesn't have to affect the plot, but it would affect the character
  arc, that's storytelling 101.

(Fafaf/28162) I have enjoyed reading your views, Lochner, but I find a couple ...

Fafaf@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 15:03:00 -0600

I have enjoyed reading your views, Lochner, but I find a couple of 
things that make me believe otherwise. 
 
First off, if the publishers thought that Dumbledore's sexuality would 
impact sales, they probably thought it would do so positively. 
Controversy over Harry Potter being 'unchristian' certainly helped the 
series appear in quite a few non-review-type articles, for instance. 

Second, I question whether being gay changes a person's perspective so 
recognizably as you think. Would I not still be myself if my sexuality 
were different? If I were writing a spy story, with no romance amid the 
secrets and action, would the participants' behaviors change if on the 
third rewrite I decided that Agent X was gay? Naturally, one can write 
the sexuality of any character impacting the story: but I think a 
writer can also write it without such a fingerprint showing up. 

And there are things, like Dumbledore's unmarried state, that strike me 
as being more likely for a gay man. Most of the men I know over (what 
is Dumbledore? 60?) have been married, even if they are not currently. 
Gandalf, whom he certainly resembles role-wise, keeps his single-hood 
by being nomadic, and completely taken up with affairs of overwhelming 
importance. Dumbledore has a rooted, established existence, and is 
painted as caring deeply for those around him, in a very hands-on, 
consistent way; has no woman ever wanted to share his life? Has no 
woman ever caught at his heart? Has no woman's name ever even been 
linked with his? 

Anyway, I do think that the signs point to Rowling having always meant 
Dumbledore to be gay, and, similarly, always meant it to affect 
backstory only, not the current Harry-Potter plot.

(Lochner/28160) Of course it's possible, but to me that's like saying that a cha...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:45:00 -0600



Of course it's possible, but to me that's like saying that a character was
always intended to be Latino, even though his name is "Bill Jones," he's never
shown to speak Spanish, and there's no evidence of Latino cultural influences
on his character in any element of the text.

Something like sexuality is a huge influence on a person's personality and
psychology, and there's little reason to decide that a character is gay (or
straight, for that matter) unless it's important in some way to the narrative.

Strider is clearly straight in Lord of the Rings, and it's important because he
marries Liv Tyler and re-unites the two broken lines.

However, Frodo's sexuality is ambiguous.  He's never shown in the text to have
any sexuality of any kind, and that's because it's not really important in any
way to the narrative.  If Tolkien were to tell us today that he meant for Frodo
to be gay all along, it doesn't really alter the story any.  We might interpret
certain passages pertaining to Sam differently, but the text provides little to
no evidence that Frodo was in love with Sam and somehow conflicted about Sam
being in love with Rose.  It's not part of the story, it's not important,
there's no story arc or character development associated with it.

Now, I know that JKR is (like Tolkien) a planner, and they planned a massive
amount of background material, but I expect something that is that crucial to a
person's psychological composition (unlike, say, Ron's dad being an avid poker
player) to manifest in AT LEAST SOME manner in the story, and if it doesn't, I
take that as persuasive evidence that that particular element was not
considered by the author.  That doesn't mean she thought, "DD is straight" and
later changed her mind, I just have serious doubts that she gave thoughtful
consideration to so critical an element of his character, yet neglected to
place any evidence of that element into the text.

"The story never necessitated it."  Right, because it wasn't there.

This is all chicken-and-egg bullshit, and I'll allow that my perception is
perhaps too much biased by own fiction writing style, which is somewhat
Hermingwayian and minimalist.

I have actually written one short story in which I clearly envisioned that the
the protagonist was homosexual, and I also envisioned that this was not going
to be a major part of the story, but indicia nevertheless come into the story.
I am simply psychologically incapable of picturing a situation in which I write
a character who is gay, and where NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE of that
element materializes after six books and thousands of pages of published
material concerning that character.

So, place the failing on me, I suppose.

(Knightshade/28159) Do you not think this is ALSO possible?

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:42:00 -0600

Do you not think this is ALSO possible?


 she planned for him to be gay, and until the Grindlewald stuff in book 7, it
was never really relevant to the story in any way, so it simply never came up
before then.

There's generally lots of stuff in a characters backstory that never makes it
into the main text of a series, or doesn't until late in the series, because
it's simply not relevant to what's going on earlier.

(Lochner/28158) I don't think it matters, I just think one of the following happ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:39:00 -0600


I don't think it matters, I just think one of the following happened:

 (a) she planned for him to be gay and deliberately left it out of the story-
     telling, likely at the behest of the publisher, who wanted no suggestion
     of any kind that the main character of a children's book was a homosexual,
     because it would create controversy and impact sales; only after the saga
     was successful was this fact allowed to be revealed, and even then, the
     evidence of it in the text is scant.

 (b) it was made up on the spot, or at least well after the books were
     successful, as a bone thrown to political correctness and progressive
     ideals about human sexuality

Neither is an attack on JKR.  If anything, I'm cynical about her publisher.

(Peccavimus/28157) There's two kinds of authors: those who plan extensively and tho...

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:34:00 -0600

There's two kinds of authors: those who plan extensively and those who
improvise extensively.  All the indications are that she is a planner.  As a
planner myself, I often figure out the details of a character's backstory in
far more detail than will ever end up in the story, mostly because I don't want
to be stuck suddenly having to figure out a character's middle name if it
*does* come up in the writing.

Sexuality is one fo the very first thing I figure out.  It's not even slightly
unlikely that she would know quite a lot about each of these characters'
psychology on a level that would never end up in the books.

Now, whether it *matters* is a matter of literary interpretation, and her
saying "he's gay" doesn't make it canon.  It's one interpretation, no matter
when she came up with it, of the story.  As a literary critic, I'd give it
pretty much equal weight with any other reasonable reading of the book.  When
Bradbury recently insisted that F. 451 was really about the dangers of
television, and not about censorship, I discounted it as a clumsy and not very
interesting reading of the book, just as I would if some other literary critic
said the same thing.

(Lochner/28156) The timing of when she said it, and loose familiarity with the k...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:45:00 -0600


The timing of when she said it, and loose familiarity with the kind of
professional hubris that plagues authors, mostly.

(Knightshade/28155) Why?

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:42:00 -0600

Why?


Or put it another way- at what point in PREVIOUS books would it have been
relevant?


It's possible she knew this before she ever started (supposedly she spent years
on backstory stuff before the first book) and it was simply never relevant to
the text.

It's possible she came up with it after book 2, or 3, or 4, or 5, or 6...

We don't know, and I don't see anything to support any one perception over
another, other than the word of the author.  Failing any reason to doubt it,
why do you?

(Lochner/28154) "Dec 8, 2011 09:41 from Danix

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 05:39:00 -0600


"Dec 8, 2011 09:41 from Danix
Lochner> The "Dumbledore is gay" subtext can be seen in Book 7,"

  That's cool.  I'm sure by book 7 she'd decided that he was gay.

  I still think it's a retcon worked into the story later.

(Danix/28153) Lochner> The "Dumbledore is gay" subtext can be seen in Book 7, ...

Danix@rss.iscabbs.com — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 04:41:00 -0600

Lochner> The "Dumbledore is gay" subtext can be seen in Book 7, it makes sense
even if JKR hadn't said anything. I believe the movies did gloss over
Dumbledore's back story, but at least in book 7 it is shown that Dumbledore
even went down Grindelwald's path to the "dark side" up until his sister's
death.

Granted, I didn't see much gay subtexts earlier, so probably JKR put that on
when she was building up Dumbledore's backstory.

(Peccavimus/28152) Authors often do write up elaborate and complex character histor...

Peccavimus@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 08:23:00 -0600

Authors often do write up elaborate and complex character histories before
writing the novel.  It's quite a common way of planning out a novel.

By the way, note that she couldn't have answered that question in any way that
didn't invovle information exterior to the text.  She couldn't say "yes" or
"no" without having to offer some of Dumbledor's history.

(Kena/28151) I've heard of other stuff aimed at kids that blends books with o...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 07:08:00 -0600

I've heard of other stuff aimed at kids that blends books with on-line content.
But, really, I just don't see "books," themselves, transforming worth a hoot. 
When I sit down to read a book, it's just that: I'm reading a book.  I'm not
looking to "enhance the experience," or "encounter interactive content," or
"dialog [sic] with co-readers in a socially aware fabric."  I'm looking to
plain ol' boring *read*.  I will admit -- books that I particularly enjoy, I
may do additional stuff with *later*; I've heard of some features that
e-readers have that blend in on-line content and interaction, and when I go
back to hit parts I particularly enjoyed, I could see that being of more
interest.  (Or, I suppose, even a hyperlink thing -- not just get the
definition of words but get, say, related sections, etc.)  I guess I could see
reading having the *option* to become less static -- but I truly can't see
books undergoing a paradigm shift.

(Gwynn/28150) Re: transformed novel

Gwynn@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 06:40:00 -0600

Re: transformed novel

I dunno, I can see it, but again if we're using the Potter books as examples, I
don't really see it. They're books. They're novels. I can go get them and know
nothing whatsoever about the website(s). I think if you had something where you
needed the site to finish the novel or such, that would be a huge
transformation, yeah.

But right now, I just don't see that happening. She's doing the equivalent of
releasing "The Potter Encyclopedia" or "The Companion to the World of Harry
Potter", she's just doing it online I guess, instead of as a book, and it
wouldn't really surprise me to see the online thing produce a book. Once stuff
gets fleshed out enough and there's enough info for it, maybe let readers get
involved, I can see a book like the companion getting produced, based on what's
on the site. But I guess I'm still not seeing enough evidence for the
transformation of the novel as we know it, not from this series alone, at any
rate.

(Knightshade/28149) Here's a transcript of the question/answer for some context BTW-

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:43:00 -0600


Here's a transcript of the question/answer for some context BTW-


Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love
himself?

My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.]
.... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror
when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it
excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an
extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix
he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by
him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a
script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line
to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair...
[laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to
the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] If I'd known it would make you
so happy, I would have announced it years ago!



This was from Oct 2007

(Lochner/28148) "The alternative is either that: She came up with it on the spo...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:38:00 -0600


"The alternative is either that:  She came up with it on the spot for that
question, and then just lied and made up all the backstory part and the bit
about the note to the script writer."

  When I first heard about it, this is what I think most likely happened.
  It hit her in a flash and she liked it and went with it.  Nothing wrong
  with that.  In fact, I'd rather that this were the case than that she
  knew from day 1 and kept it quiet.

(Knightshade/28147) Well, I don't know that she had it planned out from before book ...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:32:00 -0600

Well, I don't know that she had it planned out from before book 1...

But I can EASILY buy that when the series got the point she was developing the
overall backstory on both Dumbledore and the Hallows that she had to consider
things like Dumbledores motivations earlier in his life, and could certainly
have concluded the gay thing made sense at this point, especially in the
context of the Grindlewald relationship.


The alternative is either that:

She came up with it on the spot for that question, and then just lied and made
up all the backstory part and the bit about the note to the script writer.

OR

She came up with it after writing the whole series but then didn't bother to
mention it until a fair bit later when someone in a Q&A asked about it.


Occams razor doesn't like either alternative though.

(Lochner/28146) I understand that. I'm not saying it was some big publicity stu...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:29:00 -0600


I understand that.  I'm not saying it was some big publicity stunt, I'm just
saying the way things played out, it feels like it was an afterthought,
something she thought of later and was like, "That'd be cool."  I don't think
she sat down to write the Philosopher's Stone and was thinking, "Ok, the
headmaster of the wizard school is going to be a gay man..."

Or, if she was, she kept it bottled up to avoid the book being labeled as a
"gay kid lit,"  or the publisher insisted as such.

(Knightshade/28145) To be clear, it's not like she held a press conference to "revea...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:23:00 -0600

To be clear, it's not like she held a press conference to "reveal" it...

She was answered a question in a Q&A session and it happened to come up as part
of the answer to the question.

She claims in the answer that she had known this for a long time, and she had
even had to slip a note to the scriptwriter for one of the films about it so
that they would not include a line contradicting this idea.

(Lochner/28144) I guess I don't know if it's "tacked on" it just feels that way ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:19:00 -0600



I guess I don't know if it's "tacked on" it just feels that way to me.  I have
only read the first five books, however, and I'm not sure when she made that
pronouncement, so perhaps there's more evidence woven in that I'm not aware of.

I don't think it diminishes the books, characters, or story in any way.  I just
find it incredibly cynical, in a commercial sense, to offer a political
declaration about a character on a lightning rod issue, but only *after* the
books are highly successful and carried forth on their own interia, so that
this particular element has no chance of commercially derailing the franchise.

Whether that's a function of the publisher calling the shots or JKR minding her
own pocketbook, I just don't buy it.  My "bullshit" circuits are fully engaged.

(Salamano/28143) I think you've all made strong points. I'm thinking that noveli...

Salamano@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:18:00 -0600


I think you've all made strong points.  I'm thinking that novelists will now
become inclined to further monetize their work by crafting their stories in
such a manner as to drive readers to their respective websites.  What were
formerly self-contained works will now incorporate elements approximating the
serial. While such potential developments, and the ability of readers
throughout the world to enter into discussion with one another, as well as with
authors raises exciting possibilities, I'm thinking it may also alter the form
of the novel...for better or for worse.

(Knightshade/28142) I'm not sure how you can be so confident it's tacked on...

Knightshade@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:16:00 -0600

I'm not sure how you can be so confident it's tacked on...

I mean, any more than if we found out, say, I dunno, that Rons dad was really
good at poker or something....

It's just something that (being childrens books) didn't come up in any obvous
way in the story (we can argue about if there's any subtext to back it up, like
the couple things I mentioned that fit with the idea, but you'll just call that
applying hindsight).... but we DO know that JKR had a bunch of
background/backstory stuff on all the characters she did not include.

How can you be sure this item wasn't among them, and she came up with it
entirely after the fact?

(Lochner/28141) I have no problem with Dumberdore being gay. I appreciate that ...

Lochner@rss.iscabbs.com — Tue, 06 Dec 2011 04:14:00 -0600


I have no problem with Dumberdore being gay.  I appreciate that JKR is trying
to advance social acceptance of homosexuality by presenting sympathetic
characters to young readers who are homosexual.

It'd be one thing if the text provided this information, and it was a part of
Dumbledore's character.  It doesn't because they are books for children and if
a main character was presented as homosexual, there would be outrage and
controversy that neither JKR nor the publisher wants to deal with.

So it's not in there.  To tack it on afterwards and say, "Oh, yeah, that
character was gay," is just stupid.  It's shallow, it's pandering, and it's
embarassing.

(Kena/28122) Hmmm. While I agree in principle with it being less elegant t...

Kena@rss.iscabbs.com — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:01:00 -0600

Hmmm.  While I agree *in principle* with it being less elegant to talk about it
after-the-fact, we all know that the righties would've had, if not actual book
burning parties, a huge backlash against the books, and it would have
politicized and polarized her publishing them, removing oodles of their
innocence for young readers.  So, precisely since it doesn't have a significant
impact on the story lines, I think that particular fact was probably best left
until the books were fait accompli (or however you'd pluralize that, being
sadly ignorant of Latin).