As far as the Dumbledore thing goes, that’s been a part of Rowling’s shameless fan pandering schemes she’s been involved in since the books ended. “I’m so sad [fill in the blank] had to die!” Honestly, it’s what makes me wonder if anything she says outside of her fiction is really worth acknowledging. Because she’ll say anything. It’s something I imagine Thomas Pynchon would never even dream of doing. But then, he doesn’t have massive literary success to cling to.
Ah, the recurring fear I have when teaching a Communication Theory class… and yes, the curricula includes McLuhan!
Er, you read above that she sent notes to the movie production saying he was gay long before any sort of pandering, right?
I wonder whether it makes sense to wait for the movie to come out before we judge how successfully it handles Dumbledore’s sexuality.
I’ve always had the impression that Rowling is very hands-on with these movies - especially given that she’s writing the scripts herself for these spinoffs - so I think we can give her the benefit of the doubt over whether the characters will be handled correctly.
Seems kind of harsh. Harry Potter is a massive part of her life. She started writing it when she was around 25 and spent the better part of 20 years completely immersed in that universe (so close to half her life and almost her entire adult life). How does one separate themselves from something like that? And why is it bad that she still likes to talk about the thing that gave her an incredible life and clarify how she feels about this or that?
It’s not that she can’t or shouldn’t talk about it. It’s how she chooses to do it. She’s become a politician rather than an author in regards to talking about Harry Potter. Maybe I don’t have enough experience with how writers talk about their work, because that doesn’t really interest me. But every time she has something to say, it’s widely reported, so it’s inescapable. And that’s how it comes off to me. I still adore her writing. I love Casual Vacancy, can’t wait for the next Cormoran Strike, thought she did an excellent job with the Fantastic Beasts script.
But it’s kind of striking, this defense of her. I didn’t expect that. Not that my view would change because of it. I don’t know when she first told the film producers that Dumbledore was gay. It’s worth noting there were still three movies left to be made when the last book was published.
Also, going back and reading that snippet, I guess I understand that situation better. Silly things society sometimes makes happen…For the record, I never had a problem with her saying he was gay. I just never knew the reason she hadn’t included that in the books.
I guess I’d attribute that more to the click-bait mentality that has taken over so many “news” outlets these days. They know people love Harry Potter so anytime Rowling opens her mouth about it we get a bunch of worthless articles that pop up that say nothing much. And I get how that can be annoying. I get annoyed every time I see them.
It’s crazy that was law so recently as well as section 28 but truth be told both were repealed by Tony Blair’s administration and the last 3 volumes came out after that (and by design the books get more ‘mature’ as they progress through school). So it’s not really a great reason it wasn’t broached, what is I think is that it isn’t particularly relevant to the story.
It’s quite a common thing for authors to build up an extensive back story for characters which isn’t presented on the page in its entirety because it allows them more depth and drives their motivations. They’ll often recount where the story changes because the characters can start driving the way the narrative goes because of that.
This is famously employed by Mike Leigh where in all his films he works with the actors to establish a complete life story, where they went to school, their hobbies, what they like to watch on TV, first loves etc even if they are never featured in the script.
I agree, this is what had me so angry, initially. I know everything I can about the characters I write because my method is that, all-over, the protagonist characters in any story are mostly trying to just have a normal day at the beginning of the story, and are generally reactionary even if they go out to achieve a goal of some sort. The antagonists are only ever the characters you need to ‘make up’ actions for, every other character you should already know everything about them including how they will react - if the characters are well rounded and clear and have depth the story should basically write itself through their reactions to events. I have made up characters who have all sorts of stuff in their past but it won’t always come up in a story. But I know.
That’s why it annoyed me to see someone basically say Rowling didn’t know her own character, especially a major one. Any writer spending that much time in a world of fiction knows their characters very intimately, as those characters have to act through them and into their pen, onto the page.
And if one is silly enough to leave the wee critters to their own devices in the brain somewhere, they will eventually build their way to the surface again!
Best to tell the story right in the first place!
So let that be a lesson to you, gay people. His gayness specifically resulted in his sister dying.
Straight out of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night
Are you sure it wasn’t from the sequel Thirteenth Night: Die Harder?
I think this is true considering the implication is that the boyfriend was the one who murdered her. Could happen to any of us that like bad boys, though.
Oh my god! That means if Darth Vader were gay he’d never have killed his wife in childbirth and tried to murder his own kids.
I never really saw the point in coming up with elements to a story that aren’t referenced in the story, unless they have a reasonable chance of being referenced later. It just smacks of self-importance. I mean, even the extremes of method acting. It’s just technique. Place too much importance on it and you just needlessly drive yourself crazy. And some of it’s just PR nonsense. The definition of an actor is that they are able to convincingly play a character, make it interesting. Ideally, you draw from your own life, or what you’ve experienced around you. Like a writer. Otherwise you’re trying to follow some ridiculous cliche. It’s one thing to learn what is like for someone in the real world to work in a given profession. It’s another thing to try and come up with a backstory. If it’s not relevant it’s pointless.
The movie seems shot very minimistically. Like hand held but not.