Neil Gaiman www.NeilgaimanBoard.com www.NeilgaimanBoard.com The World's End Other Writers Some Guy who does Magic: *CONTAINS OPEN SPOILERS*
www.NeilgaimanBoard.com www.NeilgaimanBoard.com The World's End Other Writers Some Guy who does Magic: *CONTAINS OPEN SPOILERS*|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Goofy Beast Member  |
Salon has an article on the issue. As I said, I find the whole thing rather overblown, but they do make some good points.
|
|||
|
|
Archus dracomagii Member  |
A very interesting article, Thirith - thanks for the link.
- Cho _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ You are a Confectioner. Who can take a sunrise and sprinkle it with dew? Actually, that's Bob The Enchanter, two doors down on the left. But you make delectable treats, which is no simple feat considering Oompa Loompas won't be invented for three centuries. Not only do you delight with your sweets, but you've paved the way for a new profession: dentistry! _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the blog thing: From an Ayewards World ... |
|||
|
|
Click here! Member  |
Yes, thanks for posting that link Tirith. I kind of agree and disagree with the article, which always makes for interesting reading.
 ------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. |
|||
|
|
Warrior/Hunter/Judge/Prey Member  |
You know, as a lesbian who has been coming out steadily since 1994, I have to say I'm quite offended that Ms. Rowling would out Dumbledore without his explicit permission. It's one of the least tactful things you can do to us queer folk. If Dumbledore didn't want to be out, well then, his secret should have died with him. *huffs*
...You do realize I mean this totally tongue in cheek, I hope.  I'm just looking at the Salon article, and it occurs to me that while it's kind of an interesting aspect of his character (that would have been more interesting had she been able to explore it a little in the books), part of me really doesn't care, and part of me is a little annoyed by it. I think if it really mattered in any way that any character in the series was gay, she should have dealt with it in an age-appropriate context. Or simply not said anything at all. I can only imagine the backlash we're going to see from the fundamentalist evangelicals who already think the Potter series is the spawn of Satan. |
|||
|
|
Poster of the year, 2007 Member  |
You mean it's not? Then why did I bother reading it?  p.s. I had fun last night before class chatting with my friend and emphasizing the demonic qualities in the books I was presenting for class. Demons! Walking Dead! Wizardry! ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ . . ~ Weeble Song! Sing along! ~ courtesy Snazzy Snazzypants |
|||
|
|
Click here! Member |
It would've actually been much, much better if a revelation like this had been made about some book the fundamentalists *love*.  Not that I really know what literature they endorse. Except for the obvious answer, of course. ------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. |
|||
|
|
is hogging the Comfy Chair Member  |
I thought she said he was gay because the director of whichever film is out next wanted to put a bit of backstory in for Dumbledore, which included a het romance, and she had to say, er, no, not possible... So not a deliberate announcement for the sake of it, but a "this is this character's back story as I imagined it while writing the book" thing.
*********************** There once was a bard of Hong Kong Who thought limericks were too long. - Gerard Benson. |
|||
|
|
Warrior/Hunter/Judge/Prey Member |
That was part of it; the other part was that she announced it publicly at a reading (according to Salon).
When I posted originally I hadn't gotten through the Salon article yet, and having read it now I think it says some really interesting things. In hindsight (based on the article), I wish I'd picked up on the hints that she left in the seventh book, but alas. They were dramatic but easy to write off for people (myself included) who live in a heteronormative world. |
|||
|
|
Warrior/Hunter/Judge/Prey Member |
Neil has an interesting take on the whole thing in his blog. Lemme quote a couple of passages, just because I think it adds something to the discussion:
|
|||
|
|
Click here! Member |
I do see the point of the writer of that Salon article though, when she says it's a bit of a pity that Rowling tells everything about the characters, the way she seems to these days (not that I had really paid any attention before this). Although this Dumbledore revelation I find kind of borderline relevant, since it does explain some things that were hinted at in the book itself and *could* have been picked up by readers already. But things such as what happens to the characters in the future that Rowling never will write about... meh. I think she should leave a little mystery and room for speculation there.
------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. |
|||
|
|
Administrator/Colporteur Member  |
It's her world and her call, really, with no right or wrong way of going about it except what you, the creator, feel is best. I don't write much fiction, but as a DM in tabletop gaming, I know that there's a lot more going on with my characters than ever makes the gaming session. Some of it I'll pass on later or fit in if it'll add to the experience, but much of it just gets written out and never reappears.
__________ AJGraeme "You see, I have a policy about honesty and ass-kicking: if you ask for it, I have to let you have it." -Taylor Mali "Science is the foot that kicks magic square in the nuts." -Scratch Fury |
|||
|
|
is hogging the Comfy Chair Member |
I quite like these little snippets coming out. Some authors write short stories set in the same universe, others (stand up, Professor Tolkein and his descendents) publish endless vast tomes setting out every little detail of their universe and the backstories of the people and myths in them.
And as for the imagination thing - hell, I can ignore canon if I've a mind to, and so if I don't like one of her little snippets (and I've found them all entertaining so far), then I'd be happy to ignore them as well! *********************** There once was a bard of Hong Kong Who thought limericks were too long. - Gerard Benson. |
|||
|
|
Click here! Member |
I would not mind Rowling writing more about the HP universe. I'd happily let her dedicate the rest of her life to it, the way Tolkien did. But I think telling all about it in reply to interview questions - well, it just takes away some of the magic. Especially if it's stuff that could otherwise become another story, either in her head or the readers'. Like the characters' future. I'm not exactly losing any sleep because of this, though. But I find it a pity.
Well, that's the right attitude I suppose. I'm one of those who can't help but give the original writer the ultimate authority over their work, extending outside the already written & published part - so when she says X is so and so, I immediately discard whatever feeble attempt my own imagination has made at answering the question. But then again [moment of introspection]: what's my problem with this? I don't sit around at night and make up HP stories. Seriously. I don't. I swear. ------------------------------------------------- Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Except that if it's not really in the books then does it count? An author can have a backstory, he can have a sequel in mind, but if the story doesn't exist, or worse, if the author doesn't actually represent what she is trying to represent, or if the text can support another reading, then that's the true reading. Authorial intentions really don't matter that much. It's like loitering, but mean. -- Jon Stewart on lurking |
|||
|
|
is hogging the Comfy Chair Member |
Reading intentions do, though - so, as with any book, or collection of facts, or any form of art at all, just take what suits you, and if it suits you to ignore the rest, then do so!
*********************** There once was a bard of Hong Kong Who thought limericks were too long. - Gerard Benson. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Reading intentions are different than authorial intentions. Of course a reader brings his or her own baggage to a text -- that's part of what makes reading interesting as a conversation between a text and a person. But it's not picking and choosing, it's stressing different parts of the text, or focusing on them. So, for one reader, Dumbledore could be gay because they've read the book in such a way that supports that reading. While another reader might look at the same text and say, no, and here are something things that support my reading. But that's quite a different thing than ignoring a part completely! (All this makes me remember one of my professors stating why authors should never write into correct negative book reviews. A friend of his did, and then the reviewer returned with a scathing letter about how the author got his own book wrong.) It's like loitering, but mean. -- Jon Stewart on lurking |
|||
|
|
is hogging the Comfy Chair Member |
I'm afraid I do pick and choose... Authors probably hate readers like me.
*********************** There once was a bard of Hong Kong Who thought limericks were too long. - Gerard Benson. |
|||
|
|
Administrator/Colporteur Member |
Of course it does. Just because a thought isn't given voice, that doesn't mean the thought doesn't exist or have value.
Why is it the true reading? What enables the individual who does not own the story, either in principle or in practice, to be able to trump the thoughts and intentions of the author? When I was in high school, my grade eleven English teacher was going over Death of Salesman. She talked about Willy Loman and how clever Arthur Miller was for giving that name; Loman="low man," you get it? Very clever, very postmodern. Except that Arthur Miller, the story's creator, has stated in words and in print that he gave his character the last name "Loman" because that was the surname of the real-life model for Willy's physical appearance. Her observation was no more the true reading than a fortune cookie is a valid predictor of the future, regardless of whether Miller insisted that this bit of information be put in the stage notes.
If you don't care about them, of course they don't. That's not to say that they shouldn't, or than they can't. __________ AJGraeme "You see, I have a policy about honesty and ass-kicking: if you ask for it, I have to let you have it." -Taylor Mali "Science is the foot that kicks magic square in the nuts." -Scratch Fury |
|||
|
|
Member |
I just realized that my statement doesn't make any sense to me. Let me try to not sound like a drunk undergrad. Heck, I don't agree with my statement completely. There's a difference between intention and action. Authorial intentions are just that. Intentions. What was written, what has been published, is what's been done. It's me helping a little old lady crossing the street. The authorial intention is me looking at a little old lady crossing the street and thinking 'oh, I should help her.' Possibly I did help her, possibly I didn't help her at all, and just walked on by. Ultimately it's all down to the words on the page, because when I read, I don't have the luxury of having a little J.K Rowling telling me what she meant for this scene to mean, or what the character's motivation really are. I only have the pages with her words on it and my brain. (We're a dangerous combination.) But I meant true as in true for the reader, which I made to sound like a definitive reading because I didn't read that statement through. I don't believe in definitive readings. It's going to be different for different people.
You're right. Her observation isn't a true reading. It's close reading, using the author's word choice to point to greater meaning in the text. (And not postmodern at all. It has been used for a long time before anyone tried to deconstruct anything) Because certain things might have been on the author's mind. And again, Miller's statements aren't in the play. They only say what Miller thinks the play is about, not what the play is really about. It's like loitering, but mean. -- Jon Stewart on lurking |
|||
|
|
Member |
Hive-mind, I think that authors don't mind you picking and choosing unless you write a negative review of them. Then the might mind. It's like loitering, but mean. -- Jon Stewart on lurking |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | www.NeilgaimanBoard.com | ||
| Servlet | |||
