We were just having this conversation on ResetEra. Two days ago.
All of your answers can be found in that thread.
All of your answers can be found in that thread.
So why has the Harry Potter fandom turned on J.K. Rowling?
- Thread starter Uzumaki Goku
- Start date
To me it's obvious that she regrets saying that Dumbledore was gay. It was at a time where she probably didn't think she would be doing anything with the franchise involving Dumbledore and decided to use him as a way to get a cheap pop.
I don't know anything about the Potter fandom but the quality of recent Potter works has been abysmal. Cursed Child was an impressive stage production but as a story it was pure drivel, the same for Fantastic Beasts 2. Instead of being a Potter-flavoured Indiana Jones thing it became a Dumbledore prequel series full of absurd retcons, if fans hate JKR now I presume it's because she's gone the same way as George Lucas. She's got the same "it's like poetry" disease that afflicted him and destroyed his reputation.
For me, I think Pottermore could have been cool, but the cursed child was incredibly unnecessary. She should have waited. There were plenty of other areas of magic she could have explored instead but she should have left Harry alone
How I read it: Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald but couldn't confront him cause he was in love with him until he "manned" up to understand the fight was bigger than him and the man he loved was gone. He was a selfish young man and not the greatest that we all thought he was. He wasn't always great and capable but learned it the hard way
Have any of you seen the live show of The Cursed Child? The book sucks so I'm hoping it's somehow better live, cos tickets sell out crazy quick so it must have something going for it.
It's a remarkable technical feat live, but that's not got much to do with Rowling's plotting.
Orientation, not preference. It's not something one chooses.
Nothing she ever wrote suggested Dumbledore was gay though; she's just saying that on Twitter to try and appear progressive. Likewise she cast a black actress to play Hermione in the stage play of Cursed Child (why not write a major part for a black actor?) and claims stuff like there was a Jewish wizard at Hogwarts. It's all dumb needless retcons to try and appear much more progressive than the stories actually were.
In reality, not actually feminists, since you can't exclude an entire category of women and be a feminist.
That's not true, I read Dumbledore as gay during the final book long before she confirmed it (and she confirmed it after being asked about it so there was definitely something in the text people picked up on) the hints were there especially in the article written about him, it wasn't confirmed but it wasn't nothing either.
-All her post-HP7 work in the universe has been one level of shit or the other (I'd argue HP7 had some cracks starting to show up with that horrible epilogue).
-Bullshit retcons that range him confusing to downright insulting.
-And, last but certainly not least, her liking and occasionally retweeting transphobic garbage.
-Bullshit retcons that range him confusing to downright insulting.
-And, last but certainly not least, her liking and occasionally retweeting transphobic garbage.
I read all the 7 books when they were released. I watched all 8 original movies when they were releaed and enjoyed them. Then I wasn't following/consuming anything harry Potter after 2011 except going blindly to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. I hated the movies and decided to stop consuming any new Harry Potter content.
Then I came to know that there was Harry Potter Play and the script was converted to a book!!? How lazy and cash grabby is that!?
Then I came to know that there was Harry Potter Play and the script was converted to a book!!? How lazy and cash grabby is that!?
He has...other problems.
I would absolutely love to know how Watto ended up like that. I refuse to believe that anyone except George could be so oblivious, probably nobody had the balls to challenge him. What's even crazier is that in Episode 2 they gave him an absurd hat just to ram the point home even harder.
I was a closeted gay kid and didn't pick up on it at all. It's definitely opportunism though because she's since had a chance to portray their relationship and instead chose to dance around it.
To be fair that epilogue was written before book 1 IIRC, she has since said that she regrets leaving it in as she originally wrote it instead of changing it as the characters evolved over the course of the books.
Everything post deathly hallows has been bad, and some of it like crimes of grindelwald has been outright terrible.
Personally I've never thought she was a very good writer nor have I ever really liked Harry Potter (except the third film, that's very good) but I dislike her because she's s TERF.
While I agree that the whole thing almost seems made up after the fact, it is true that in-universe characters like Bathilda Bagshot and that Dumbledore's friend as well as many others do mention that Dumbledore and Grindelwald were very close, closer than brothers almost. So the implication is there.
Beyond that some people complain that based on what Dumbledore does and what people say of him during the story, no one would guess he is gay, but... Isn't that true for most people anyway? You don't know someone's sexuality unless they tell you or you see them with their SO. And why would Dumbledore tell Harry? It was irrelevant to the story, as was (for example) professor Flitwick's wife (if he has one)
One can argue that Dumbledore being openly gay could have been good for LGBT representation, but in my opinion it'd come a little forced. We don't know anything about any other teacher or character love life or relation except those who matter for the main story (does McGonagall have a husband? Does it matter?).
Dumbledore was gay but that fact mattered as much as Trelawney's sexuality or Cornelius Fudge's.
Where was that said though, in the books?
Admittedly I haven't read it since 2007 but I feel I remember zero of that subtext. The gay Dumbledore stuff always felt like an attention seeking retcon rather than a genuine attempt at being inclusive.
1) trying to appear as a progressive person by retroactively confirming some supposedly progressive things (i.e. Dumbledore is gay, some other character is black/a jew) while never committing to those things in the actual books & movies. I.e. Dumbledore is gay but beelzebub forbid he is ever described/shown with another man in either the books or the most recent movie where he and his lover are featured prominently. It's more or less vague wink-winks/hints at his gay adventures but never anything too explicit
2) she's a terf/seemingly progressive who keeps following & sharing/liking transphobic people & tweets. She wields quite a lot of influence with her huge amount of followers & fans and chooses to use it to oppress an already horribly oppressed minority (or give voice to those who would oppress them).
3) she keeps doing George Lucas prequel level (if not even worse) retcons/reveals about the Harry Potter universe that are souring even the fans who don't care about "political agendas"/progressive ideals.
2) she's a terf/seemingly progressive who keeps following & sharing/liking transphobic people & tweets. She wields quite a lot of influence with her huge amount of followers & fans and chooses to use it to oppress an already horribly oppressed minority (or give voice to those who would oppress them).
3) she keeps doing George Lucas prequel level (if not even worse) retcons/reveals about the Harry Potter universe that are souring even the fans who don't care about "political agendas"/progressive ideals.
I'm pretty sure I remember plenty of teachers/faculty members flirting with each other in various circumstances + one of the (eventual) central tragedies/(one-sided) romances is Snape's love for Harry's mother. Straight people get plenty of pagetime, when it comes to relationships.
And why would the mention of Dumbledore's gayness feel any more forced than any other confirmed sexual orientations?
Let's be honest. We all turned on her because she wrote Ron getting with Hermione.
You don't come back from that, and she hasn't.
You don't come back from that, and she hasn't.
You'll have to remind me about all those teachers/faculty member flirting, I don't recall any one of that but I haven't read the books in at least a decade.
It'd be forced because as far as I remember nothing of the like was ever mentioned for any character. And I don't mean sexuality, I mean any sort of background story beyond the basics for any non-major character. Snape is the exception because his love story with Lily was vital to the whole plot. But we did not get any info about sexuality or relationships of any other faculty member (Lupin being another exception but it happened alongside the plot) not even Lockhart whose entire character was based on being attractive to women.
The question would be, in what context could Dumbledore's sexuality be revealed to the readers while still making sense within the story. We cannot assume everybody knew, in fact as far as we know no one did, save perhaps Aberforth.
I haven't read the books in a while so I don't remember all of the details. At the very least Hagrid has the hots for that (also half-giant?) teacher from the other school. There's at least one teacher who I think we read flirting with another teacher at some Christmas party or the like.
The books mention Dumbledore's "very close" relationship. That could've just been confirmed as a romance at that point, instead of leaving it somewhat up for interpretation. Nothing forced about that since, according to JK Rowling outside the books, they were a couple for some time. If it's a matter of fact, mentioning it in the books (more clearly) shouldn't have been much of an issue or come off as forced. Besides, who gives a shit if it comes off as "forced" when it would have added some much needed LGBT representation into the world of HP. That's more important than being subtle about it. It's not like Harry Potter is subtle in everything else it does so one "forced" gay reveal is nothing.
I agree largely, but LGBT as a concept is never mentioned or even hinted at (no gay students for example), which is a consequence of it being a 90s children series I suppose, so we don't really know how accepted or not accepted it is supposed to be, or if anyone really knew they were together.
Not that any of that works as an excuse, she decided not to include LGBT representation because at that time it wasn't usually considered. The issue is how when she had the opportunity to do it right (Fantastic Beasts), she still chooses not to.
You know how people on right bitch about "shoving politics into stories" or "forced diversity" and 99% of the time it's complete bollox? The Harry Potter franchise is that 1%, complete lip service to having something to say and having a "diverse cast" while never actually doing anything in the canon books/movies to show that.
Also while a lot of star wars fans acknowledge the prequel films are bad, there is a lot of stuff they enjoy from those films and great expanded universe stories in that era. The one major retcon was dropped as a plot point after Phantom Menace.
Harry Potter's prequel series has just crazy doubled down on retcons that don't add anything to the narrative.
Also while a lot of star wars fans acknowledge the prequel films are bad, there is a lot of stuff they enjoy from those films and great expanded universe stories in that era. The one major retcon was dropped as a plot point after Phantom Menace.
Harry Potter's prequel series has just crazy doubled down on retcons that don't add anything to the narrative.
I had a good time, even in the cheapest seats farthest back (£15). A lot of stuff happens at the front of the stage though so you have to lean forward to see what's going on at points.
Harry Potter and the Cursed Child is absolutely phenomenal on stage. I highly recommend seeing it if you ever have the chance.
I still haven't read the book/script because of how terrible the plot is, but everything else about the play is fantastic.
This comparison can fuck right off.
As others have gone into, while Rowling and her books have a number of major flaws — not least which is a cowardly unwillingness to provide overt representation — Dumbledore's sexuality and his relationship with Grindelwald was strong subtext; it wasn't retroactive, it wasn't "forced diversity," and it wasn't "politics shoved into a story."
Its obviousness was what spurred people to ask her to confirm it.
Does Rowling even count as a TERF? When I think of radical feminists JK doesn't really register on the list at all. She's just your garden-variety transphobe.
Yeah but isn't this the same argument people give against things like Idris Elba being James Bond? I mean, did Dumbledore have a look interest in the book when everyone assumed he was heterosexual? Why would that change because he's gay? Idk, seems like a weird argument to make.
I'm just waking up, and still somewhat asleep, but I guess I don't mind the retcons.
She's a coward.
She's too cowardly to commit to LGBTQ+ characters, and she's too cowardly to speak her anti-trans hate.
The retcons are just a symptom of her trying to appear like she cares.
Because Bond is a franchise with one protagonist and a few recurring side characters. Harry Potter is a franchise with dozens of people in the main cast and, unless I'm misremembering, the only major explicitly non-white character is Kingsley Shacklebolt, who I'm guessing doesn't even show up until book 5 (when the Order of the Phoenix are introduced). Plus James Bond has been played by 6 (I think?) different actors across nearly six decades, so of course they have to keep recasting the role.
Part of it is Rowling, the other part is the toxic fandom that doesnt move on and gives her attention and feeds her ego.
I was raised in a school of literature that says the author is dead. If it isn't on the books, i would not pay attention or sweat about it too much, not even the movies would be part of such analysis.
I was raised in a school of literature that says the author is dead. If it isn't on the books, i would not pay attention or sweat about it too much, not even the movies would be part of such analysis.
- Saying Dumbledore is gay but not making that an explicit fact in the existing canon. Subtext is not text, no matter how much you want it to be. It's a spineless way of trying to pretend to be "woke". It was even more ridiculous when she had that interview that said she believes Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship to be a deeply intimate and sexual one. Joanne, stop with the dancing around and put your money where your mouth is. Make it textual fact, not lore told in interviews.
- The really borderline racist stuff about the American and Japanese magic schools she released on Pottermore.
- The dumb lore stuff that is unwanted and disgusting like shitting on the floor
The only point that matters:
- Joanne Rowling is a transphobe
- The really borderline racist stuff about the American and Japanese magic schools she released on Pottermore.
- The dumb lore stuff that is unwanted and disgusting like shitting on the floor
The only point that matters:
- Joanne Rowling is a transphobe
I don't think Cursed Child and black Hermoine isn't that big of a deal besides Rowling attempts at retcon from what I understand plays well play more fast and loose regarding race especially Hamilton has the American founding fathers played by black people and Hispanics
The problem with that is that Rowling instead of saying that Hermoine race doesn't matter because it really doesn't tried to act like she wasn't white
The problem with that is that Rowling instead of saying that Hermoine race doesn't matter because it really doesn't tried to act like she wasn't white
Well, there's also Cho Chang. But yes, nearly anyone important in her works is white and straight.