One reporter-JKR's revelations: To Know & Not to Know

[Steve]

---  "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> bboyminn:
> > 
> > Here is something we need to consider. When JKR makes statements
> > that occur beyond the end of books Seven, I don't think she
> > is intending to dictate this to us as if it were canon. 
> > 
> > She seems, most often when answering these question, to 
> > answer with /qualified/ statements. In otherword, 'I picture...',
> > 'I thought...', 'It seemed to me that...'. For example, she
> > never said Dumbledore was gay, she said 'I always thought of
> > him as gay'. 
> > 
> > In other words, she is imagining the Potterverse future beyond
> > book seven the same way that we are imagining it. ... that is 
> > JKR imagination, she has not written it down in any book or 
> > official publication, so I think we are free to  imagine our
> > own alternatives. 
> > 
> > So, my point is until she officially writes something down, we
> > and she are free to imagine what we want. We and she are even
> > free to change our mind from day to day.
> > 
> > ...it is merely the fluid speculations of the author, and that 
> > shouldn't inhibit our own fluid every changing speculations.
> ><snip>
> > 
> > So, part of my point is that I think at this stage JKR just
> > considers herself another fan. She imagines the future she
> > imagines, and we are free to imagine alternatives. I... Now
> > if she eventually writes a literary work chronicling Harry's 
> > future life in story form, that becomes canon. But you know 
> > what, canon has never inhibited the imaginations of wildly 
> > creative fan fiction writers.
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't think she regards herself as just another fan. "He's
> my character" pretty much says the opposite--she's the creator;
> we're the fans. She owns him.
> 

bboyminn:

But again, that statement is tied to a context. The context
seems to be controversy seeking reporters trying to blow 
this up into a headline grabbing news story. Some are challenging
JKR having made that statement that she 'thought Dumbledore was
gay'. Her response was, paraphrased, hey, I can think anything I
want. I can imagine my characters as I see fit. And you know
what, she can. She is perfectly within her right to see her
characters as she chooses.

JKR knows Dumbledore history and inner landscape in extreme detail,
she knows things about him that we never imagined. She knows how
Dumbledore reacted to meeting Grindlewald, and she knows it just as
surely as she knows Winston Churchill was Prime Minister. She has
created the full lives of many other characters even though those
details don't play a part in the books. Yet, those detailed 
histories do color the characters. They do control and influence
what characters say and how they react. 

Even saying she 'thought of Dumbledore as gay' has a context of its
own. JKR can't elaborate in minute detail in open public interviews.
So, logically and reasonably, she condenses and summaries. Saying
Dumbledore is gay is the tip of the iceberg. There is much much 
much more context below the surface.

I don't think JKR intended to say that Dumbledore was a flaming
queen. I think she was pointing out one small aspect of his 
history that tragically colored his entire life. Saying he is 
gay, is a way of making the largest possible statement in the 
fewest possible words. But I don't think it defines Dumbledore, 
nor do I think it absolutely defines his sexuality. 

>From the incident with Grindlewald, Dumbledore saw one of his 
greatest weaknesses as a desire for power, so from then on he shunned
all possible avenues of great power. I suspect he also saw another 
of his flaws in his infatuation with a brilliant mind and a pretty
face, and wonder if he didn't equally shun those things for the
rest of his life. 

As I've said before, I find the revelation that Dumbledore had gay
tendencies as making his story, in the context of what I know from
the books, all the more tragic and sad. 

> Carol:
>
> Of course she has the right to speak about her own characters.
> The problem is, as the article states, that each new statement
> she makes, even if it's not a pronouncement of canonical "fact"
> or "truth"--just "I always imagined him" or whatever--makes it
> more difficult to interpret and imagine for ourselves. ... Now
> I can't read the books without seeing him as gay whether I want
> to or not and whether it adds to the story or not.
> 
> ...
> 
> I think I'm repeating, but I'll just say again that whatever 
> JKR says will influence the way the readers react to her 
> novels and what they see there. ...

bboyminn:

Here's the point I was trying to make. JKR isn't running around
grabbing people at random, dragging the off to a corner, and 
saying things like 'guess what...Dumbledore is gay', 'guess
what...Harry revolutionized the Auror's office', 'guess what...
Neville married Hannah', etc.... She is responding directly to 
fan questions. So, I say if fans really don't want to know then
they need to stop asking for answers. Either that, or the need 
to word their questions with extreme caution. 

The trouble is fans want to know but they DON'T want to know. But
you can't have it both ways. If you don't want to her the answer
they you really have to restrain yourself from asking the 
questions. Some one wanted to know about Dumbledore's love life,
and now they have the answer; and now they have to deal with it.

Again, I don't take JKR's statement about Dumbledore as an
absolute definition of Dumbledore. I prefer to believe that it
reflects an aspect of Dumbledore, at best a tendency that appeared
in his life and resulted in very grave consequences. I don't see
that one tendency as defining Dumbledore's life. I see the whole 
thing as FAR FAR more complicated than simply 'I thought of him
as gay'. 

So back to my basic philosophy -

"Don't ask questions you aren't prepared to hear the answers to."

Steve/bboyminn