Dumbledore = outed!

[Lulujayne]

She's a fag hag. She wrote the entire series just so she could maybe have the chance of sleeping with her gay best friend.... Wait, wasn't there a hollywood movie about this already?

[Aeridus]

Ghastly forums: fighting about the fictionality of fiction since 1999.

[Swordsman3003]

Besides, all great authors write a generous backstory for their characters for personal reference. Doesn't mean they have to put the entire backstory in their writing in some form. It's good for characters to have a little bit of mystery.

Fair enough. But that does not make it part of the story. If it is not in the book, then it is not in the book. A reader should not have to research every single thing a writer has ever said in order to know what 'really' happened in a story.

That's crap, pure and simple.

First off, reader's don't HAVE to research jack. If she'd wanted Dumbledore's being gay to be a central part of the story she could have written it in, certainly, but his sexuality was never actually questioned anywhere in the book. Now, it's fine for a reader to ASSUME anything they want, but you have no cause to refute the quthor's asertion. Just because she withheld a single aspect of his personality and lifestyle in no way changes his characterization. His sexuality(or lack thereof) were never key to any part of any book, so whether he wasn't sleeping with women or wasn't sleeping with MEN makes little difference in the long run.

I don't particularly care whether Dumbledore's sexuality has an impact on the book or not.

What I'm completely sick of is this trope that the author/director/whatever can retroactively add to the original work.

I implore you to address my hypothetical example. Answer me! If she says Harry is a transexual, does that immediate make that part of the story?

I think that's bullshit. Once the book is printed, it is finished.

Furthermore, if you're giving the creator of the story the power to add anything she likes to the work, what prevents her from changing or subtracting from the original story?

What is she says that the character of Draco was just Harry's hallucination? Or what if she says that Chapter 5 from Order of the Phoenix never actually happened?

That's crap. Her opinion on her own story may be astute, but she does not have the power to change the events in the story.

And what the heck does something "not happeneing in the books" have to do with whether or not the author has the right to exercise thier rights over thier characters.

I never said she didn't own the rights to her characters. She can write as many sequels and prequels and interquels or whatever the fuck she wants.

I'm simply saying that her off-the-cuff remarks are no more part of the cannonical story than mine are.

She didn't say World War II happened in her books, it's never expressly mentioned, so I guess if she were to say now that some wizard, say Seamus Finagan's grandfather, fought in it, why then I guess she's just lying again.

Yes. That did not happen in the book. It is irrelevent to the plot and it did not happen in the story.

The CREATOR of a work does not 'express opinions' when they make a claim like this, they're expressing FACT.

Yeah, I laughed out loud when I read this.

First of all, it's a fiction story. There are no facts; there is simply conjecture and imagination.

Now, I think I know what your getting at, and I think you're mistaken.

The "facts" of the story consist only of what's actually in the story. You're giving every author everwhere the unlimited power to change and rewrite any of their books simply by saying something.

Whether or not it matters, that's up to an individual reader, who can ignore whatever they want in favour of seeing things the way they want to.

Sure. I definitely agree that everyone will have to make a personal decision.

I just find it kind of retarded that if I give a little boy the series to read, he will never ever be able to effectively figure out that Dumbledore is "in fact" gay. If I ask him, and he says Dumbledore is straight, his opinion is just as valid. It's not part of the story just because Rowling wants it to be.

Dumbledore's being gay was a part of the characterization that Rowling envisioned for him. Just because it never became public knowledge in the books in no way means that it wasn't somthing that shaped his growth and evolution as a character.

I didn't challenge that at all. I never questioned that the idea that he is gay hasn't had an effect on her writing of the character. That is not my position and never will be.

Much of the information regarding what happens to the characters after the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has come from interviews with J.K. Rowling. Among the "highlights": Ginny's career as a professional Quidditch player; Harry and Ron being high-level Aurors; Luna Lovegood's eventual marriage to a character never even mentioned in the books; Dolores Umbridge being thrown in prison for crimes against Muggle-borns (rather than inadvertently killed by Hermione Granger, as many fans speculated); and who killed Remus Lupin and Nymphadora Tonks-Lupin (Antonin Dolohov and Bellatrix Lestrange, respectively). Oh...and Dumbledore is gay.Proof here. She also is thinking about making a Harry Potter encyclopedia, that will divulge even more information.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WordOfGod

Again I ask you to answer my question.[/list]

[RavenxDrake]

I never said she didn't own the rights to her characters. She can write as many sequels and prequels and interquels or whatever the fuck she wants.

I'm simply saying that her off-the-cuff remarks are no more part of the cannonical story than mine are.

Ok... so she has the right to prequels, for example one in which Dumbledore has a torrid one-night affair with Grindlewald and that thier breakup the following day was the cause of the fight that killed Dumbledore's sister, but unless she actually has it printed and published IN A BOOK, instead of stating it as a fact, then it can't be true?

I implore you to address my hypothetical example. Answer me! If she says Harry is a transexual, does that immediate make that part of the story?

...

The "facts" of the story consist only of what's actually in the story. You're giving every author everwhere the unlimited power to change and rewrite any of their books simply by saying something.

And to answer your question, I believe Harry's sexual identity was fairly firmly established as male, though it was never directly brought up. I'm not saying that creator of a series can just make up things that run purely contrary to the established cannon, but if a creator is addressed about something that is never covered in the media, that the characters never discuss, then the CREATOR has the final say in what, exactly, the answer to that question is. Fans speculate. They guess, or conjecture, or extrapolate. The creator of a media, however, is the single, definitive authority on them, and when they give an answer to an unanswered then, yes, it becomes cannon. While I don't agree with an author or creator blithely re-writing existing information(Lucas, I'm looking at you), when you're in a grey area of information then the facts(yes, facts. You can have facts ABOUT fictional characters. Example: Sherlock Holms lived at 221b Baker Street. That's a fact about the character) can only come from the creator. Now, the fans can guess correctly, and if they do so more power to them, but the FANS to not have the power to over-ride the author's say so on character's lives.

I just find it kind of retarded that if I give a little boy the series to read, he will never ever be able to effectively figure out that Dumbledore is "in fact" gay. If I ask him, and he says Dumbledore is straight, his opinion is just as valid. It's not part of the story just because Rowling wants it to be.

I'm curious why it's important that the boy finds out that Dumbldore is "in fact" gay? As I said before, it was never supposed to be a focal point of the story, and it's never revealed directly, but why does that change whether or not it's true. Even you yourself admitted that it's ok for the writer to have information the readers don't and allow that to shape the characters...

So you don't have a problem with the writer having the information about a character the readers don't.

You don't have a problem with the writer adding to a story in book form with additional information through sequels and prequels.

But the author isn't allowed to just say the information?

If J. K. Rowling was asked what day was Remus Lupin burried on, and she actually happened to have that information because she was planning a short story based on it, but it hadn't been published, can she still answer the question and be "right" by the limitations you've put forth? What if she thought about the funeral, but decided NOT to write the story about it, ever. Is she now LESS right because it isn't going to be published?

[Swordsman3003]

I never said she didn't own the rights to her characters. She can write as many sequels and prequels and interquels or whatever the fuck she wants.

I'm simply saying that her off-the-cuff remarks are no more part of the cannonical story than mine are.

Ok... so she has the right to prequels, for example one in which Dumbledore has a torrid one-night affair with Grindlewald and that thier breakup the following day was the cause of the fight that killed Dumbledore's sister, but unless she actually has it printed and published IN A BOOK, instead of stating it as a fact, then it can't be true?

If she actually wrote it.

I implore you to address my hypothetical example. Answer me! If she says Harry is a transexual, does that immediate make that part of the story?

...

The "facts" of the story consist only of what's actually in the story. You're giving every author everwhere the unlimited power to change and rewrite any of their books simply by saying something.

And to answer your question, I believe Harry's sexual identity was fairly firmly established as male, though it was never directly brought up. I'm not saying that creator of a series can just make up things that run purely contrary to the established cannon,[/quote]

Making Harry a transexual would not contradict cannon. It would only enlighten readers to a "fact" that was previously unknown.

but if a creator is addressed about something that is never covered in the media, that the characters never discuss, then the CREATOR has the final say in what, exactly, the answer to that question is.

I disagree. I think that nobody can add "facts" to a story once it has already been published.

If it is not in the book, then it's not part of the story and it never happened as part of the plot.

Fans speculate. They guess, or conjecture, or extrapolate. The creator of a media, however, is the single, definitive authority on them, and when they give an answer to an unanswered then, yes, it becomes cannon.

The creator is the single, definitive authority while the work is being written. Once it is published or aired or whatever, the work is complete and they cannot change what is part of the plot.

Here is a very strong argument for me case:

What if a book is authored by two or more persons?

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Harry Potter was a collaborative work. What if one of the authors said Dumbledore was gay and one say that he was definitely not? What, in this case, are the facts?

I think this example shows how your position will lead to logical contradictions.

While I don't agree with an author or creator blithely re-writing existing information(Lucas, I'm looking at you), when you're in a grey area of information then the facts(yes, facts. You can have facts ABOUT fictional characters. Example: Sherlock Holms lived at 221b Baker Street. That's a fact about the character) can only come from the creator.

Why do you grant permission for writers to add to the cannon by not change it? On what basis do you say that it's fair for them to add to but not change their work?

And I suppose you're right, there are such things as facts about fictional characters.

Now, the fans can guess correctly, and if they do so more power to them, but the FANS to not have the power to over-ride the author's say so on character's lives.

I'm not saying fans override the author, I'm saying they are equal. And by equal, I mean worthless.

I just find it kind of retarded that if I give a little boy the series to read, he will never ever be able to effectively figure out that Dumbledore is "in fact" gay. If I ask him, and he says Dumbledore is straight, his opinion is just as valid. It's not part of the story just because Rowling wants it to be.

I'm curious why it's important that the boy finds out that Dumbldore is "in fact" gay?

It's neither here nor there. I don't really care whether he finds out or not. What is depressing to me is that you think that some people's interpretation of or speculation about a story is more authoritative than others.

As I said before, it was never supposed to be a focal point of the story, and it's never revealed directly, but why does that change whether or not it's true. Even you yourself admitted that it's ok for the writer to have information the readers don't and allow that to shape the characters...

I don't mind that writers try to flesh out their characters, but if they decide not to incorporate a specific "fact" into the book, then it's not cannonical.

So you don't have a problem with the writer having the information about a character the readers don't.

Not at all.

Do recall, however, that some notes about characters in the first book of a series...an author later decides to throw out.

Tell me, if an author makes a note about a character that nobody sees and later writes something different, is that on the same level of ass-hattery as George Lucas making Han shoot second?

Just wondering. I really hate Lucas for some of the stuff he's done.

You don't have a problem with the writer adding to a story in book form with additional information through sequels and prequels.

But the author isn't allowed to just say the information?

No. You will lead to a breakdown of continuity in books written by multiple authors.

If J. K. Rowling was asked what day was Remus Lupin burried on, and she actually happened to have that information because she was planning a short story based on it, but it hadn't been published, can she still answer the question and be "right" by the limitations you've put forth? What if she thought about the funeral, but decided NOT to write the story about it, ever. Is she now LESS right because it isn't going to be published?

You like to use examples of trivial facts to show how it's "not a big deal" that authors can retroactively add to a story, but what you should really be focusing on is how authors, under your guidelines, can add all sorts of ridiculous information to a story and have it be considered "factual."

[Xero]

I think its funny so many people are getting into epeen wars over such low quality literary work

[Swordsman3003]

My position is well thought-out.

Remember the case I brought up about books my multiple authors?

If an author has the power to add canonical content to a book, what happens when the two authors say contradictory remarks about their story?

It's a logical contradiction. That's why I think it's a silly idea.



Furthermore, popular opinion does not determine what is rational or true.

[Aeridus]

Penis butter jelly sandwiches.

[Xero]

My position is well thought-out.

Remember the case I brought up about books my multiple authors?

If an author has the power to add canonical content to a book, what happens when the two authors say contradictory remarks about their story?

It's a logical contradiction. That's why I think it's a silly idea.



Furthermore, popular opinion does not determine what is rational or true.

if enough people decide to say green rather than blue green will be the new blue
if the group is large enough to pressure everyone else to agree with them

[RavenxDrake]

I disagree. I think that nobody can add "facts" to a story once it has already been published.

If it is not in the book, then it's not part of the story and it never happened as part of the plot.

I agree with your disagreement, insofar as your disagreement makes sense. I'm not saying that Dumbledore being gay is part of the plot now, it's not. It never was, and even now that it's revealed he's gay, never will be. It's impossible for a book that never spent so much as a fractured paragraph describing the man's sexual preferences to have it's plot changed by revealing his sexual preference. And yet, in a Schrodenger-esque Kinsey Point shift way, the fact that his sexuality was never measured in the book cannot change the eventual outcome of his coming out... he can't be any more or less gay, now, than he was at the start of the book series, even if it wasn't decided he was gay until the last book was underway.

See, and maybe it's just me talking from my own experience in my writing, but the fact is I don't believe the BOOK is the heart of a character's universe... the universe exists in the author's mind, the book(or movie, or comic, or video game) is merely a snapshot, a portrait painted by that creator(or creators) to share thier world with you... that's why the creator, not the book, is the difinitive authority.

If two authors colaborate equally, and each contributed equally to the creation of a character, then they're BOTH right about that character.

Yeah, that's right. I don't have any problem with two authors saying two completely different things about the same character, nor with saying that both are right. Now, for cannon's sake, if they proceed to publish further works they'll eventually have to hammer out a compromise(unless they begin writing two seperate series of works), but either one would still be right in asserting thier version is the right one. Yes, stories evolve over time, as do characters. Sometimes things are thrown out, or altered, or embelished, even after the work is "finished". I don't particularly LIKE it when it happens, especially if it changes important aspects of a character or the story, but it's still the creator's prerogative to do so if they feel the need, because the works don't belong to the fans. I've NEVER believed that, and never will. The works belong, solely and in total, to thier creators and if thier creators choose to share them with us then so much the better.

I suppose to someone with a particularly rigid view of media and the creators, that will make absolutely no sense, but in my mind the true creators are the ones that would still be writing and creating these worlds, these characters, these stories even if the were never published and sat on thier computers(or on slowly yellowing typewriter paper in the back of the closet). To them a book or comic or movie script is not the universe of thier characters, it's simply how much of thier universe they can afford to share with us at a given time. If that universe changes, shifts, evolves, then so be it... sometimes it changes for the better, sometimes it changes for the worse, but I absolutely do not think that a fan, a reader, a viewer, a player, a critic, or any other passive observer has one whit of right to object to that evolution.

[MistressMaggie]

Additional information like this doesn't change the book. It doesn't change the facts, it doesn't change the dialogue, it doesn't change the words written on the paper. It doesn't change "He loved Harry like a son" to "He loved Harry's cock".

What it does change is our perception of the story. Haven't you ever looked at a book or film differently after someone tells you an opinion of the film? For instance, the film "Kiwi" that was posted here... It doesn't really confirm that the kiwi died, and my mother was convinced that the bird was ok until my sister told her it died, at which point my mother viewed it as a really sad video about a suicide rather than as a triumphant video of a bird achieving its life goal (I realise that the subject matter of this example is a little silly, but it was the best I could come up with off the top of my head).

And really, what makes a story? is it the words on the page, or our interpretation of the events therein? If even one person gets a more complete understanding of the work from the addition, than it has affected the story and becomes a part of it.

I've never even read any of the books, so please, don't bother arguing plot lines with me or quoting from the books, i really don't care.

[Aeridus]

[WangyJohn]

Couldn't he just use a scrying spell or something?

[RavenxDrake]

Couldn't he just use a scrying spell or something?

Oh god, I'm a bigger Potter Geek than I thought...

[Swordsman3003]

I disagree. I think that nobody can add "facts" to a story once it has already been published.

If it is not in the book, then it's not part of the story and it never happened as part of the plot.

I agree with your disagreement, insofar as your disagreement makes sense. I'm not saying that Dumbledore being gay is part of the plot now, it's not. It never was, and even now that it's revealed he's gay, never will be. It's impossible for a book that never spent so much as a fractured paragraph describing the man's sexual preferences to have it's plot changed by revealing his sexual preference. And yet, in a Schrodenger-esque Kinsey Point shift way, the fact that his sexuality was never measured in the book cannot change the eventual outcome of his coming out... he can't be any more or less gay, now, than he was at the start of the book series, even if it wasn't decided he was gay until the last book was underway.

It seems we are in general agreement on this point.

However, I don't think that her comments retroactively make him gay, regardless of when she "decided" he was gay. The books offer zero commentary regarding his sexuality.

See, and maybe it's just me talking from my own experience in my writing, but the fact is I don't believe the BOOK is the heart of a character's universe... the universe exists in the author's mind, the book(or movie, or comic, or video game) is merely a snapshot, a portrait painted by that creator(or creators) to share thier world with you... that's why the creator, not the book, is the difinitive authority.

So according to you, Rowling has the power to make Harry a transexual, Hermione a transfigured slug, and Ron an alien life-form....as long as she claims that it is part of her personal "conception" of the character.

I think that's obscene.

Once the book is published, my opinions on the subtext of a story count just as much as anyone else's even the author.

I'm sure J.K. Rowling kicked around hundreds of ideas that she later decided to drop and replace with something different or completely opposite.

Maybe Harry originally was going to die in the last book.

Well, I don't give a crap about what she might have included in the book....anything she leaves out of the books is outside of her jurisdiction unless she writes an actual sequel.

Her opinion that Dumbledore is gay is no more valid that the if she originally wanted Harry to die in the last book. Anything she leaves out of the plot did not actually "happen."

If two authors colaborate equally, and each contributed equally to the creation of a character, then they're BOTH right about that character.

Yeah, that's right. I don't have any problem with two authors saying two completely different things about the same character, nor with saying that both are right. Now, for cannon's sake, if they proceed to publish further works they'll eventually have to hammer out a compromise(unless they begin writing two seperate series of works), but either one would still be right in asserting thier version is the right one. Yes, stories evolve over time, as do characters. Sometimes things are thrown out, or altered, or embelished, even after the work is "finished".

That's ridiculous.

You're so concerned over what 'actually' happens to characters in a plot....yet you'll permit completely opposite things to 'actually' happen to them!

I suppose that ends my argument, though. If you're willing to permit that, then there's nothing more I have to say about works by multiple authors.

I don't particularly LIKE it when it happens, especially if it changes important aspects of a character or the story, but it's still the creator's prerogative to do so if they feel the need, because the works don't belong to the fans.

I never, ever, said that a writer's works belong to her fans. Maybe you're just ranting about people who do think that, but I'd like to iterate how I agree that fans do not control a work of art and how that concurs with my philosophy on creative license.

When the book is printed, that is the end of it. period. Nobody, fans, writers, whoever, have any more authority to add to the book than anybody else, except in the case that the author decides to actually write a sequel to the book. And even then, I might argue that the original work can stand by itself in some cases.

I've NEVER believed that, and never will. The works belong, solely and in total, to thier creators and if thier creators choose to share them with us then so much the better.

I never said that writers do not own their works or that it does not "belong" to them.

I simply feel that a writer cannot add to a story by word of mouth any more than a painter could add to a painting by telling you what is just outside the frame.

An artist's opinion of what is beyond the frame is just as valid as anyone else's. If that artist wanted it to be part of the picture, he should have painted it in there.

I suppose to someone with a particularly rigid view of media and the creators, that will make absolutely no sense, but in my mind the true creators are the ones that would still be writing and creating these worlds, these characters, these stories even if the were never published and sat on thier computers(or on slowly yellowing typewriter paper in the back of the closet).

I would agree with your description of my view as rigid. However, I do not think that is necessarily a negative term.

With your view regarding stories, a reader has no idea if anything in a story has actually "happened," and is also forced to wonder what "factual" details are missing from the book.

I think my guidelines are fair to readers in the sense that they prevent that nonsense, and I think they are also fair to writers so that they will know which of their ideas and random thought-farts count as "real" in their creative works.

To them a book or comic or movie script is not the universe of thier characters, it's simply how much of thier universe they can afford to share with us at a given time.

I think you're wrong about that.

It's the scope of their universe they consider necessary and sufficient to convey the meaning they want to show their readers.

If that universe changes, shifts, evolves, then so be it... sometimes it changes for the better, sometimes it changes for the worse, but I absolutely do not think that a fan, a reader, a viewer, a player, a critic, or any other passive observer has one whit of right to object to that evolution.

They why do you object to what George Lucas has done? Don't you think it's completely ludicrious?

I'm not particularly concerned with him right now though, because he as least had the gall to produce a replacement version to his original work.

But if you say that we, the humble viewers, have no right to object to what a creator does with their works, then how do you get off complaining about George Lucas?


Anyways, I think critics have every right to criticsize works of art!

[ManaUser]

I guess it depends on whether you think of what the author created as a series of books or a setting. If it's just books, then obviously no other information changes them. If it's a setting then there's no reason not to give equal weight to any other information the author provides.

[RavenxDrake]

Simple, I don't like it because I think that the changes and evolutions he's made don't benefit the characters or the story. don't like the changes he's made, not that he chose to make them. I don't have to LIKE the end result of what people choose to do, but I don't have the personal rights to say that it's wrong. You have the right to evaulate something and tell whether you like it or not, and if that somthing is changed (comic-book "retcons" or movie rewrites) then you certainly have the right to re-evaluate just how much you like the new edition.

You can object to the changes they make, or additions they include, but I don't feel it's right to try to claim they have no right or ability to do them.

And I never said having a rigid veiw of creators and thier work was in any way bad, I was merely saying that my more fluid concept of the universe of a medium would probably not make sense to you, since it runs particularly contrary to yours...

[Sir_kibble_jr]

I don't think canon has to be black and white. What ManaUser said about books vs setting is important. The Harry Potter series of books is over. It is complete. The world that JKR created for that series isn't. If she is considering writing an encyclopedia then she more likely than not has stacks of notes about parts of the setting that were created but never found there way into the story. iirc, Rowling mentioned that she had made lists of all the students in Harry's year - there'd be plenty of details that haven't made it into canon. Yet.

If it is necessary to have a clear cut black and white definition of canon, you'd be best waiting until the author is dead. All JKR needs to do to make Dumbledore's sexuality 'canon' would be to publish a short story about his romance with Grindlewald on her website.

Yes, the books are over. I know I'd certainly like for that to be the end of it. This wasn't front page news, I mean come on (stupid Australian newspapers.) But there are alot of fans out there who want to know more. They want to know what people to after the books are finished. They want to know who hooks up with who. They want to know all kinds of silly things. I guess the author could just say 'No, sorry, no more questions. I've already written the books, it's done.'

In the case of Tolkiens creations, canon is more complicated than yes or no. There are degrees of canon-icity. The printed books (Hobbit and LotR) are canon. But there are also the letters, the Silmarilion, and all the various drafts published in the History of Middle Earth. There is considerable discussion of exactly how canonical various texts are. Tolkiens fans are a curious bunch, or course.

The same happens with Buffy, or Star Wars. The TV show or Movies are canon. But there are also novels, comic adaptions, games etc. So canon isn't quite black and white.

With Harry Potter, there are also the movies. In the interview, JKR mentions that Dumbledore being came came up in the script review of the latest movie - there was going to be a reference to him having had a girlfriend, and she made them change it (to take it out, iirc, so the movie would be ambiguous.)

So, um, that's a bit of a rant, just to basically say that it isn't as cleear cut at you are making it out to be, Swordsman.

[Swordsman3003]

My personal theory of canonicity is by no means some objective truth. I simply feel that applying it will result in the most complete and coherent version of "truth."

[Jackalope]

Did no one mention that one of the rumored book Rowling is thinking of writing is an early life of Dumbledore, and the fans at least have been pulling for Snape's earlier adventures in full. If she plans to go back and write in the same world during an earlier time period, then the bits about Dumbledore might become useful. She's already told you quite a lot about him and how the book might twist with that little snippet.