J.K. Rowling and the Dumbledore Sexual Identity Mystery

[Risingblade]

I never pictured him as gay either. He just came off like such a lady's man to me.

 

[Michel Henzel]

She isn't wrong in any way. If she decides that dumbledore was a gay man, then that is canon, end of story. Anyone elses personal interpretations are just that, THEIR interpretations. It does not change what is and isn't canon.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

I'll never understand the phenomenon of people trying to outsmart the author. Anyone can come up with a theory on something, but only the 'professor' has the answer sheet. If I were to theorize that Dumbledore was actually wearing a fake beard the whole time, it would be a fun theory, but it would be wrong.

I already proved that cannot be the case in the OP. Also, you hold that opinion against all of postmodern theory for the last 70 years or so. Have fun with it.

Of course. I assumed that the fan meant "see" figuratively too. What I meant was that the fan still implied that there's something about DUmbledore -- something about his person -- that means that he can't be gay (in the opinion of the fan). And that's what I meant was homophobic: The idea that a perosn who is like Dumbledore can't be gay. Dumbledore's looks was just one example of things people might judge isn't "what a gay man is like."

It does not not have to be negative. How about this possible scenario: The fan reads more into a scene between Dumbledore and a female teacher than was intended, and assumes he and her have a romantic history. This then gives an unintended context to all later scenes between them, reenforcing her interpretation. Certainly, we can make arguments against her interpretation, and they are easy to make, but philosophically, it is never our right to say that she is wrong. Then, she asks Rowling for clarification, and this is at least a possible scenario.

But it's not a question of interpretation. When a person says something, they mean something by it, something very specific. Whether we clearly understand it is what matters, not whether we fully grasp every last subtle nuance. Should we fail to do so, we ask for clarification; the fundamental limits of language may not be something we can change, but we can circumvent them; the lack of expressiveness language has doesn't mean that deep communication is impossible- nor does alter the underlying realities of the situation.

The more pressing matter, however, is that you seem to be operating under a deeper, fundamentally incorrect assumption, namely that there is no distinction between the text and the story. Albus Dumbledore does not "exist" in the sense of being a physical living being within the reality that you and I live in; within the reality of the Harry Potter novels, he most certainly does. The latter is, plainly and simply, fact. Further, in our reality, while Dumbledore doesn't exist as a person, he does exist as a character; as a character, he has certain traits. One of those traits is sexual orientation. If he has a sexual orientation (which he does), then it does not matter what I think that it is; I can certainly interpret what I see him do and say, but my interpretation may well be wrong; there is absolutely a "true" interpretation. You and I and all humans that live may well have been created by an outside force; our sexual orientations are what they are, and there is most definitely a "true" interpretation of them.

Now, you may argue that this idea of an objective reality governing a created work is somehow different from the idea of an objective reality governing our world. Let's go a little deeper. Suppose I'm telling you the story of a camping trip I took. Certain events took place on that trip (objective reality) of which I have my own interpretations (subjective reality), limited by my perception and understanding. You didn't come on the trip; you were nowhere nearby. That your knowledge of the trip's events only comes from my retelling, meaning that you have both account for the limits of my understanding them and "interpret" my retelling, doesn't change the reality of these events. Suppose that, while I slept, a moose passed by my tent, leaving no signs of its passage, and I awoke with no knowledge of it. Obviously, I can't tell you about this; neither the reality of my experience nor the reality of my story will mention the moose; that doesn't change the fact that the moose was there. Reality is what it is; all that interpretation changes is what we take away from it.

What Barthes failed to understand- indeed, what that whole movement of literary philosophy failed to understand- is that interpretation and experience are two different things. In a nutshell, it's not the "author" who's out of date, it's the anti-empiricist. You need a little less S/Z and a little more Finnegans Wake.

"Ceci n'est pas une pipe." I've never been a fan of James Joyce, to be sure, which is odd, as I am an Irish American. You are correct that my school of thought is decidedly French, but I assure you, with a language that terrible, they have much practical experience in these matters of miscommunication. I agree with you about the external reality. There is an objective reality for real humans, and nothing can change this, even if our interpretation of that reality is flawed or incomplete. But, I answered most of what you said in the OP, as I said that fact cannot exist within a fictional space. There can be no fact of Dumbledore's sexuality because there can be no fact within fiction.

I actually agree that all that interpretation changes is what we take away from reality, this is why I stress that the text itself is so important, as the text itself is the only reality that we can agree on. And also, this is why I reject when Rowling attempts to effectively alter people's interpretation of the text, when she herself had over one million words in order to communicate the ideas that she wished to communicate.

She isn't wrong in any way. If she decides that dumbledore was a gay man, then that is canon, end of story. Anyone elses personal interpretations are just that, THEIR interpretations. It does not change what is and isn't canon.

Do not make literary philosophy Hulk angry. Look, I'll just link you Barthes and you can read that. But really, what you said is demonstrably false, and that is all I will say about it.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

 

[FalloutJack]

I'll never understand the phenomenon of people trying to outsmart the author. Anyone can come up with a theory on something, but only the 'professor' has the answer sheet. If I were to theorize that Dumbledore was actually wearing a fake beard the whole time, it would be a fun theory, but it would be wrong.

I already proved that cannot be the case in the OP. Also, you hold that opinion against all of postmodern theory for the last 70 years or so. Have fun with it.

If you didn't want an opposing theory, don't make the thread. Also, this isn't post-modernism. It's fiction.

 

[Shymer]

Long essay posted to gaming site about a short tweet proving that people don't think about textual interpretation before posting stuff on the net and that this behaviour can sometimes make them look a bit silly to some people.

Story checks out.

 

[DoPo]

Do not make literary philosophy Hulk angry. Look, I'll just link you Barthes and you can read that. But really, what you said is demonstrably false, and that is all I will say about it.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

Look, if we were to only ever consider this then the entire thread is meaningless. The fan's question does not make any amount of sense.

Then, she asks Rowling for clarification

See: does not compute. Why ask the author for clarification if the author has no input? Why anybody ever would mind what Rowling has said? And how the heck is anything Rowling said "invalid" if it is supposed to be as valid as anybody else's interpretation? Her statement that "[Dumbledore] is what I say he is" is exactly correct and you claiming otherwise would be facetious at the least. Again, as you stated, however, people do not need to subscribe to her interpretation of the character. The freedom of interpretation goes both ways. But scolding her for the audacity of providing a valid interpretation is just ludicrous.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

Do not make literary philosophy Hulk angry. Look, I'll just link you Barthes and you can read that. But really, what you said is demonstrably false, and that is all I will say about it.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

Look, if we were to only ever consider this then the entire thread is meaningless. The fan's question does not make any amount of sense.

Then, she asks Rowling for clarification

See: does not compute. Why ask the author for clarification if the author has no input? Why anybody ever would mind what Rowling has said? And how the heck is anything Rowling said "invalid" if it is supposed to be as valid as anybody else's interpretation? Her statement that "[Dumbledore] is what I say he is" is exactly correct and you claiming otherwise would be facetious at the least. Again, as you stated, however, people do not need to subscribe to her interpretation of the character. The freedom of interpretation goes both ways. But scolding her for the audacity of providing a valid interpretation is just ludicrous.

One reason why I chose this instance is because it shows how silly it is to appeal to authorial intent. Rowling's interpretation is valid indeed, and I actually only agree with Barthes about 75% of the way. I think that authors can provide very compelling arguments for specific interpretations. However, there is one thing you are missing: Rowling had more than a million words to establish this textually, and she did not, for whatever reason. And no, Dumbledore is not "exactly" what she says he is, and everyone has an unassailable right to interpret him, as he does not actually exist. I demonstrated how it is not just a right, but also completely impossible otherwise in the OP. From this perspective, Dumbledore cannot be what she says he is, because we can never agree exactly what she says he is, irrespective of the other issues at play. The reason I criticize her is for not communicating properly the ideas she intended to communicate in the text, then contextually arguing for them. It is sloppy, artistically speaking.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I just think it's really stupid of Rowling to keep talking about her books like they're a work in progress. She had like a decade to write them down and publish them. Enough with the silly press conference reveals of "This character is this" and "This character did that". Lady, the books are out. Whatever you failed to weave into them is your fault, stop adding shit.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I don't see what was so inappropriate or thoughtless about it, the answer seemed pretty standard.

Her response to the fan was inappropriate and thoughtless...

No. No, it wasn't. The fan was homophobic. Really homophobic. The fan was basically saying "I can't comprehend how a perosn with that personality and demeanour could be homosexual." The only reason you'd ever think of it that way is if you had some preconceived notion that a gay person has to look or act a certain way. That really is the only possible reason.

I'm not saying that any offense was intended, of course. But really, it's obviously inappropriate to publicly say something like that. It is not in any way inappropriate to tell somebody that gay people just look like regular people.

tl;dr: It is not aactually inappropriate to admonish somebody who makes homophobic comments.

I disagree completely. I think there are literally dozens of ways to interpret this, most hinging on what the word "see" means to you, that is, what it signifies to you. If she meant it literally, then yes, she would be implying that gay people have to "look" a certain way. But, it is likely that she just meant it figuratively, like not understanding a math equation and saying: "I don't see how we get this solution." It helps to remember that Dumbledore does not actually exist, and thus there is no "true" interpretation here, and more to the point, no way to literally "see" him at all, thus I assume the figurative.

I hope you see the irony that you're criticizing Rowling for interpreting someone's use of the word "see" literally, and then you yourself are interpreting her use of the word "look" literally? Is it not possible that she meant "look" figuratively as well, and so, its definition extends to how they act, speak and present themselves in other ways.

Also, blah blah blah death of the author blah. Yeah, we get it. How's this sound, we all have a right to our own unique interpretation of art, which means we also have the right to base our interpretation on "word of god" from the author. My interpretation of Dumbledore's sexuality is that he's gay, because the author said so. Is that not a valid interpretation? Or are you going to pitch for open interpretation then load it down with your own personal rules?
Absolute freedom will always include the right give up your freedom, and freedom of thought includes the right to follow the thoughts of others (after all, you are wielding Barthes' essay like a cudgel).

In the case of in-universe canon, you have every right to assert your own interpretations, but I have the right to assert mine, and I have the right to base that interpretation on the author's word. No matter how much you stamp your feet and tell people they don't have to listen to the author, they have the right to listen to the author, and plenty of people always will.
To be honest, when it comes to petty trivia, I would rather simply ask the author than have their work bloated with every tiny bit of trivia, lest they *gasp* find them self in a situation where they clarify points that aren't explicitly spelled out in the text itself.
Also, how do you fell about appendices? The entire function of appendices are to include additional information that may not be spelled out explicitly in the chapters. Do the appendices count as part of the text? If not, then why? A lot of this death of the author idea is fine, but as modern as people claim it is, it seems to still be based off an archaic view of fiction that discounts wikis and other sources. Can these wikis not be interpreted to be part of the work as well?
If for what ever reason someone wanted to know the exact birthday of one of the characters, why pick through an entire series and compile evidence when you can simply ask the author, or better yet, consult a wiki? You might call it intellectually lazy, but I'd ask what the point is in taking the most circuitous route when a more practical option is available?

As for the arguments specifically about Dumbledore's sexuality, there apparently are hints in the text. But, in a more general sense, I'll pose you a question. Let's use the birthday example. If for what ever reason you wanted to know the date of birth of one of the characters, how would you find that out? Would you expect the writer to explicitly spell out the date? Would you pick through all the works this character appears in hope for a clue? Or would you simply consult a wiki that uses "word of god"?

 

[Ryan Hughes]

I don't see what was so inappropriate or thoughtless about it, the answer seemed pretty standard.

I hope you see the irony that you're criticizing Rowling for interpreting someone's use of the word "see" literally, and then you yourself are interpreting her use of the word "look" literally? Is it not possible that she meant "look" figuratively as well, and so, its definition extends to how they act, speak and present themselves in other ways.

I'm not doing that. I understand she meant it more to the figurative, and my point is still valid, because her use of that word is not what bugs me, but her attitude towards her own writing.

Also, blah blah blah death of the author blah. Yeah, we get it. How's this sound, we all have a right to our own unique interpretation of art, which means we also have the right to base our interpretation on "word of god" from the author. My interpretation of Dumbledore's sexuality is that he's gay, because the author said so. Is that not a valid interpretation? Or are you going to pitch for open interpretation then load it down with your own personal rules?
Absolute freedom will always include the right give up your freedom, and freedom of thought includes the right to follow the thoughts of others (after all, you are wielding Barthes' essay like a cudgel).

That is obviously true, so obvious I didn't bother to bring it up. But here is the thing, are you really OK with that? Are you really alright with voluntarily giving that up to the author under every circumstance? because in order to be authentic, it must be under every circumstance, otherwise it is still a function of your own agency. Because I can barely even imagine someone willingly doing that, especially at a time when titles are passed around like so much commodity nowadays between owners.

In the case of in-universe canon, you have every right to assert your own interpretations, but I have the right to assert mine, and I have the right to base that interpretation on the author's word. No matter how much you stamp your feet and tell people they don't have to listen to the author, they have the right to listen to the author, and plenty of people always will.
To be honest, when it comes to petty trivia, I would rather simply ask the author than have their work bloated with every tiny bit of trivia, lest they *gasp* find them self in a situation where they clarify points that aren't explicitly spelled out in the text itself.
Also, how do you fell about appendices? The entire function of appendices are to include additional information that may not be spelled out explicitly in the chapters. Do the appendices count as part of the text? If not, then why? A lot of this death of the author idea is fine, but as modern as people claim it is, it seems to still be based off an archaic view of fiction that discounts wikis and other sources. Can these wikis not be interpreted to be part of the work as well?
If for what ever reason someone wanted to know the exact birthday of one of the characters, why pick through an entire series and compile evidence when you can simply ask the author, or better yet, consult a wiki? You might call it intellectually lazy, but I'd ask what the point is in taking the most circuitous route when a more practical option is available?

Don't get me started on canon, that is not a fun conversation. Appendices are usually considered part of the text, while things like Wiki are not. I could explain why, but I don't have time to write another 3,000 words here, but it comes down to inseparability.

As for the arguments specifically about Dumbledore's sexuality, there apparently are hints in the text. But, in a more general sense, I'll pose you a question. Let's use the birthday example. If for what ever reason you wanted to know the date of birth of one of the characters, how would you find that out? Would you expect the writer to explicitly spell out the date? Would you pick through all the works this character appears in hope for a clue? Or would you simply consult a wiki that uses "word of god"?

Simple. I don't care. As I said, fiction in its most basic for is simply the communication of ideas. Authors select which ideas to communicate in the text, if a character's birthdate is not mentioned, then I assume the author chose not to communicate it, likely because there was no important idea associated with it. Same with Dumbledore's sexuality. You are right that there are some hints in-text but they only become apparent in the contextual argument, and I assumed no idea that Ms Rowling wished to communicate to me was attached to that either way. Then, it is if she changed her mind about the importance of that idea, and instead of writing a new -say- prequel, she uses this contextual argument like a cudgel.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I was going to put this in an edit of my other post, but I feel it would bloat it too much, even with it being rather relevant to what was previously said.

In the terms of interpretation, how does this work with multiple works. Take Star Wars for example, in SW4 it is never implied that Darth Vader is Luke's father, yet, in the next film this point is revealed. Does that mean that Darth Vader isn't Luke's father in the previous film because it doesn't appear in that film specifically?
* If yes, then why?
* If no, then I have a follow up question.

If other works can contribute to a single canon, then what about "companion books"? In the same vein as appendices, companion books are basically an assortment of information that does not appear in the other texts. Take for example, The World of Ice and Fire, a companion book for the A Song of Ice and Fire series. If multiple books can contribute to a single canon, then do companion books count?
* If not, then why? Is it because they don't have a plot, or use a different format? For what reason should they be excluded?
* If they do contribute, then I have yet another follow up question.

Companion books are basically just less extensive wikis in physical form, if they count towards the overall whole, then do wikis?
* If not, then why? Is it the lack of a physical form? If so, then what about e-books? Is it the lack of a price tag? If so, then what about free books?
* If yes, then I have one last follow up question.

If wikis count towards a canon, then does that extend to tweets, blog posts and any other form of communication?
* If not, then why? They are both methods of communication.
* If so, then is the author really "dead"?

 

[Vault101]

I'll never understand the phenomenon of people trying to outsmart the author. Anyone can come up with a theory on something, but only the 'professor' has the answer sheet. If I were to theorize that Dumbledore was actually wearing a fake beard the whole time, it would be a fun theory, but it would be wrong.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT DO WE??/!! 0_0 Christ maybe Harry but just being a "hipster" about his glasses the whole time

OT: of all the things to get your jimmies rustled over...I'd say her response was pretty appropriate

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Wait, how was her response inappropriate? The way the fan's question was worded was pretty damn insensitive, JK Rowling's response was at most snarky, and judging by the fan's follow-up response it looks like the fan realized that their question was pretty stupid as well.

I actually like her twitter snark, it's made me like her more.

 

[Fox12]

Recently, Ms. Rowling responded to a Twitter question about Dumbledore's sexuality, you might have heard of it, but I will link to the entire conversation reprinted in The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...e-cant-see-dumbledore-being-gay-10131369.html

Her response to the fan was inappropriate and thoughtless, and this has become something that Ms. Rowling has made an intermittent habit of since the end of the series. So, I thought I would take this opportunity to demonstrate my feelings.

Please note that this has nothing to do with sexuality itself, of that I could not care less, but rather with the philosophical concepts of text and authorial intent. This is a prime example of what many authors get wrong about their own work...

No. No no no NO! Death of the author is one thing we will never agree on my friend >: P

Seriously, though, I stand by the author having the final word over their own work. They wrote it, and understand it on a level that critics frankly can't, even very fine ones. I find it somewhat, well, arrogant when critics overstep their boundaries in the realm of academic thought by suggesting that they have as much authority on the matter as the writer. I also dislike it when critics take this for granted. At best, it's a philosophical argument in which I think they have to fight an uphill battle. It is certainly not a settled matter. Authors have always argued that they have the final say in their own work, and tend to look down on those who say otherwise. Critics have tried, for many generations, to argue that they, and society at large, decide the meaning of the work. Personally, I'm on the side of the author. However, I'll lay that aside for now. The fact is that it will never be a settled matter. The two sides will always argue over this, and the two sides will go back and forth in terms of popularity.

As for Potter, the reason that the audience never gets to know much about Dumbledore's sexuality is because the story takes place from Harry's perspective. The narrator in question isn't privy to that information because, frankly, it's not relevant. It certainly isn't a failing on the part of Rowling. If the narration had been from the perspective of Aberforth, or possibly even mcgonagall, then the situation may have been different. However, there were numerous hints concerning Dumbledore's sexuality. It was simply subtle. I've heard people complain about him not wearing his sexuality on his sleeve, but that's not fair. She included the detail in a more subtle manner, she did not exclude it. It makes sense for her to write it the way she did, given the fact that we get the story from Harry's perspective.

EDIT: I'll add that postmodernism does not have the final word in the matter. It is one of multiple critical philosophies, and, frankly, it's one that is likely on the way out.

 

[RJ 17]

I still don't really see the point in declaring that he was gay in the first place...seems like intentional rabble-rousing to me.

Now, I do fully agree with the notion that if you're trying to write "realistic" characters, you wouldn't have him coming up and saying "Hello Harry, I'm Dumbledore, and I'm a homosexual" because that's just silly, homosexuals are indeed normal people like everyone else.

What I don't fully agree with is interjecting sexuality for no real reason into a story that has absolutely nothing to do with sex or sexuality. Why not declare that McGonagall is a bisexual? That Professor Snape is a transexual?

As an author, if you want to flesh out your characters by adding little details to them to make them more three dimensional and feel more alive, that's perfectly fine. But there's a little thing called "subtext", and it can be used quite adequately to achieve this. An example? Have a scene where Harry approaches Dumbledore while he's enjoying a casual meal with another male professor. Doesn't even have to be a romantic meal, but just something that would imply he prefers the company of other men. It could indeed be nothing more than a meal between colleagues, or it could hint at something more. That's subtext.

Coming out of left field after your series is finished and just declaring "Oh, by the way, that guy was gay" seems rather silly if you ask me.

Full Disclosure: I actually haven't read the series, but my understanding is that there's nothing in it to imply that Dumbledore was a homosexual. If there are hints for an attentive reader to pick up on, then by all means disregard all of the above and pay no attention to the guy who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

Edit: Just so anyone reading this knows: someone was kind enough to set the record straight regarding this matter at the top of the next page, so I have a better understanding of the situation.

 

[Fox12]

Full Disclosure: I actually haven't read the series, but my understanding is that there's nothing in it to imply that Dumbledore was a homosexual. If there are hints for an attentive reader to pick up on, then by all means disregard all of the above and pay no attention to the guy who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

There were hints, but it was a children's book series, so I think a lot of people were either too young to pick up on it, or simply weren't looking for it. The original question was posed by a child.

Dumbledore's past is a mystery until the last book, and even then, we get the information from two unreliable narrators. What we know in the first book is that Dumbledore defeated an evil wizard named Grindlewald, who was basically wizard Hitler, in Europe in the 40's. We also know that Grindlewald stayed out of England, presumably because he was scared of Dumbledore, and that, for some reason, Dumbledore took his sweet time stopping Grindlewald. What we learn in the final book is that the two characters, in fact, knew each other as young men in their early twenties. They were constantly sending each other letters, and spent all of their time together. Dumbledore also ignored the warnings of friends and family who thought that Grindlewald was dangerous. The story never directly states that they were lovers, but it's certainly implied. There was then an incident, and Grindlewald had to flee the country.

What Rowling clarified was that the two characters had a relationship. Dumbledore ignored the evil aspects of Grindlewald because he was blinded by love, and this hurt Dumbledore later on. It also clarified that Grindlewald didn't avoid England because he was scared of Dumbledore, he avoided England because he didn't want to fight someone he cared about. Dumbledore, in turn, waited to fight Grindlewald because it broke his heart to fight the man he loved. However, he couldn't ignore the horrible things that were happening, and so he chose to fight the person he loved in order to save innocent people.

Now, Rowling received two types of critics after this. The first were mad that Dumbledore was gay. They wanted to pretend he wasn't, because they believed it made him less of a person. Obviously, I disagree with this group, because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. The second group felt that Rowling should have made this information more obvious, and that it was cowardly to not have this more prominant. I disagree with this group because there's no reason for Harry to know about something that happened sixty years ago. Dumbledore was ashamed of what happened, because he let love blind him, and people died. It was his deepest secret. Why would Harry know about it? Rowling wasn't burrying Dumbledore's sexuality, and she didn't fail to include it in the text. She just didn't feel the need to beat us over the head with the fact since it had almost no connection to the main plot. That's actually good writing.

 

[RJ 17]

Now, Rowling received two types of critics after this. The first were mad that Dumbledore was gay. They wanted to pretend he wasn't, because they believed it made him less of a person. Obviously, I disagree with this group, because there's nothing wrong with homosexuality. The second group felt that Rowling should have made this information more obvious, and that it was cowardly to not have this more prominant. I disagree with this group because there's no reason for Harry to know about something that happened sixty years ago. Dumbledore was ashamed of what happened, because he let love blind him, and people died. It was his deepest secret. Why would Harry know about it? Rowling wasn't burrying Dumbledore's sexuality, and she didn't fail to include it in the text. She just didn't feel the need to beat us over the head with the fact since it had almost no connection to the main plot. That's actually good writing.

Ahh, thank you for giving me the proper context on this. This being the case - judging by the synopsis you provided - then yeah, I'd say that Rowling played it pretty well after all.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I think you undermine your point here somewhat when you consider that the question in effect asks why the author interprets her own work a certain way.

If you ask that, then you are inherently invalidating your own interpretation, because, well, you are asking the author to justify theirs.

And they don't need to.

In fact, if your premise is correct, the aurhor's interpretation as at least as valid as anyone else's and that, by extension means that while the author might not be entitled to force her own interpretation on anyone, but for obvious reasons, the reverse is also true.

By asking a question that poses the point 'why did the author do ...' You are almost ccertainly posing a question which, by the nature of the philosophical point being used in the OP, a person has no right to ask.

If this philosophical point is correct, then it becomes true that the author has no more say in the interpretation of their work than anyone else.
But, conversely, neither do they have less say.

Therefore it is highly insulting to try and tell the author they should not have an opinion on their own work.

But perhaps you should consider another point. I am an unpublished author, and as such, I know something of the nature of creating a story.

And this does make me question the philosophical point being made.

To a reader, the words on the published page are all that exists. How they interpret them informs how they view the fictional world the story creates.


To the author, chances are, the published works are a heavily edited subset of something much larger. Just because only part of it is written down, the other elements don't cease to exist.
These may be written down as notee, or exist only in the authors head, but they do exist in most cases.

There may have been sections cut from a book - not because they didn't happen (in as far as the book describes a reality, and not merely a specific story), but simply for purposes of pacing.

Fiction often skips large chunks of time. On purpose, because describing every moment in detail would be dull.
Even so, the author might have devised quite a few things that belong in these moments where the story jumps ahead for the sake of the plot.

If an author shares with the world some of these extra details, are they invalid because they weren't published?
They may be unpublishable facts and details in the traditional sense. (because, say, they make sense if you interpret the work as a living world, but have basically no content or relevance to a story - like, say, what did Hermoine Granger have for breakfast on the 70th day of her first year? Irrelevant to the plot, but we can infer that were it a real world, there would be an answer to that.)

And that, I think is why this bit of philosophy falls down.

To an author, their work is the entire collection of things they know about the world they built, whether part of a published work or not.

To a reader, for obvious reasons their world consists of what they read, (and whatever they imagine).

And while neither cancels out the other, the author's unpublished extra details informed what they wrote.

If the end work is 300,000 words, the author likely has something in their head, notes, revisions, drafts, and so on which far exceeds that.

On top of that, the author's knowledge of their world informs anything else they write which is related to that world

And you can't tell an author what they know is wrong.

At the very least, you have afford the author the same respect that you give the readers.
They have as much right to disagree with anyone's interpretation of the work as people have to disagree with eachother's opinions.
Expecting more of the author than of anyone else, just because they are the author is incredibly disrespectful.
Either their opinion is equally valid, or by the nature of their extra unique knowledge it is more valid. But there is no interpretation under which it is less valid than that of anyone else.
And you shouldn't burden an author with needing to have an undue level of consideration for the interpretations of others. In the end, all the author did was write a story others liked to read, and that's the only skill they are sure to have...


And finally, taking things to a broader level, if I am communicating with someone, and they misinterpret my words, I have not just the right, but in fact, the responsibility to correct their interpretation of what I said.
This is a basic aspect of communication nessesary to ensure people actually understand one another.

If you for instance reply to this forum post, and my interpretation of your reply leads me to think you misunderstood what I meant, my response wouldn't be to just respect your interpretation of my words and leave it at that. Instead, I would try to use more words to make my intended point clearer, and to try and downplay any interpretations of my words that were unintended on my part.

This is an inherent aspect of communication which is essential given that words don't mean the same thing to everyone.

In this sense, if you consider a book to be an author communicating with their readers, the argument that ghe author should respect the interpretations their readers have of the work becomes even more absurd, since not ever attempting to correct these incorrect interpretations (As seen from the author's point of view) Would constitute the author having terrible communication skills.

To ignore the author is to treat a book as an object existing in a vacuum, with no wider context, rather than as a means of communication, which, it quite obviously is.

This becomes more obvious when you have a nonfiction work where there is only one right answer to some factual point. If the author writes it down badly, and someone misinterprets it, tells the author, and the author says it's wrong, and gives the factually correct answer, this whole philosophical point would be absurd. The author's reply is correct, the reader's is wrong. (which is indirectly the author's fault for not writing it down better in the first place, but still)

Yet somehow, for a work of fiction both the basic principles of communication AND the notion that some questions may have a specific 'correct' answer all goes out the window?

That seems a little absurd, and I don't think it is a reasonable philosophy to be applying to something which at it's heart is merely a specialised extension of human communication in general.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

[snip]

I would say that, while the "death of the author" concept may be interesting from certain perspective, it falls apart immediately when applied to works that have significant world building, or even simply span multiple books. I seems somewhat arbitrary to declare that certain words from the author count towards our understanding of the fictional world, but other words don't. After all, that's all a book really is, a collection of words from the author printed on a page to tell us a story. Why should these words from the author printed and bound up into a single volume count, but the words from the author posted on a blog suddenly don't exist?

How do we know Harry has black hair? The author said so.
How do we know Dumbledore is gay? The author said so.
I don't think this second form of communication would suddenly become more valid if she happened to write it on a post-it note and stick it in between the cover.

I guess it come down to how you view a work. Me, personally, I view it as more of a contiguous body of work that is made up of more than just the text that is in the novels. After all, if a novel contains a map of a single fictional continent, and the author uploads a map of the entire planet, I'm not just going to close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and begin yelling "la la la la la la wasn't in the book, la la la la la all these other places don't exist".

When an author publishes a work, they are essentially giving you a glimpse into a fictional world. I don't see anything wrong with supplementing this world with additional facts that don't strictly need to be in the book.

 

[iamme142]

Ahh, thank you for giving me the proper context on this. This being the case - judging by the synopsis you provided - then yeah, I'd say that Rowling played it pretty well after all.

Also worth noting is the reason this initially came up years ago was that the studio wanted to give Dumbledore a love interest(female) in one of the movies and Rowling returned a note saying basically no you can't do that he's gay. At some point this became a news item, so it wasn't something she just announced out of left field after the books were out.