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, and how they unwittingly damage themselves, their fans, and the work they have created.
The fan tweeted:
1) People absolutely have a right to interpret works of art as they see fit, and 2) Text itself is text itself, that which is outside of text can only be literally contextual.
When I say call the right of interpretation "absolute," I do so concretely, as there is no possible way to even begin to create shared signified among large groups of people even for a single word, let alone a work as long and as dense as her Harry Potter novels. To use a classic example: I will say the word "dog." What this signifies to you might be entirely different than what it signifies to me, and moreover, again entirely different to a third person. You could immediately think of Lassie saving Timmy from a well, I could think about my retriever urinating on my couch, while our third imaginary friend might have been attacked by a dog as a small child, and is now panicking. Certainly, we have definitions, but these actually become more and more inadequate as their corresponding words are used, as words then begin to signify concepts rather than textual definitions. For an example of this in action look to any major world religion, what is signified by their sacred text changes vastly and constantly, especially over generations.
The problem of what is signified by the signifier becomes compounded further when used for abstract concepts rather than concrete objects. I could bring a dog into a room, point at it, and say "dog." Even though our signified would not match entirely, we may have similar signified, though I imagine our third imaginary friend would be quite distressed at this turn of events. Now let's choose another three-letter word: "Gay," and now hopefully you can begin to "see" (meaning the word in the figurative sense) a part of my point. We can conduct this experiment with any number of words: "freedom" is a favorite of political scoundrels, for example.
Just as what is signified to me by the word "dog" is no more or less true than what is signified to you by that same word, what is signified to our third imaginary friend is every bit as real and true as well. Now instead of one word, imagine a system of texts containing one million, eight thousand words, and you will get some idea of what the Harry Potter novels look like from a semiological perspective.
Hopefully, this will be enough to have proven philosophical point number one above. People have an absolute, unassailable right to interpret text as they see fit. Moreover, be very wary of anyone who says differently, as this is likely a way to get you to do or to purchase something for them or from them.
So, our Harry Potter fan was demonstrably correct in her statement, that she did not see Dumbledore as gay, as she is speaking only of her own signified. Her interpretation of the text did not include Dumbledore as gay. If we are to ask ourselves why this occurred, we can come to no discernible answer, but one major possibly presents itself: Dumbledore's sexuality is not established textually, and it required a contextual argument from the author after publication.
Before moving on, it should be helpful to define the word "text" for the purposes of our conversation. And yes, I am well aware I spent much of this essay blowing the concepts of "definition" out of the water, but please bare with me as I am merely showing fundamental flaws in language, feel free to hate me if you think this makes me a terrible hypocrite. A "text" is really any whole work of art, in this case a book, or the whole series of novels. In semiotics, a text can also be -say- a sculpture, a painting, etc, but thankfully we do not have to broaden our signified for those in this case. (For gaming it would be interesting to argue as to whether source code could be considered part of the game's "text.")
So, if under many signified, Dumbledore's sexuality is not textually established in the text of the novels, and moreover, the author herself felt the need to contextually (lit. "alongside the text") comment on the matter, we can then deduce one thing: Ms. Rowling either failed, or did not intend in any clear manner to signify to the reader Dumbledore's sexuality. That is to say, she either slyly hid reference, or simply failed to properly communicate that idea. At its most basic form, fiction is simply the communication of ideas to a reader or audience. Oftentimes, though not always, the more complicated the idea, the more difficult it is to communicate, and sexuality can often be a complicated idea, particularly to those who have never struggled with their own sexual identity, considering the possibility of vastly different signified. And while this may correctly be seen as something of a luxury, perhaps it should be taken to account, as it is a relatively common one. If Ms. Rowling intended to slyly hide reference to Dumbledore's sexuality, then there is no logical reason for her to respond to her fan the way that she did. Thus, it is at least most likely that she failed to communicate this idea in the way that she intended.
Make no mistake, sly reference to non-traditional sexuality in literature is nothing new. In fact, it is nearly as old as literature itself. However, it is helpful to note that under most of these circumstances, authors could face ostracization, imprisonment, or even death for the mere mention of homosexuality. This is why -for example- Dumas chose to describe the character of Eugenee in The Count of Monte Cristo as "wearing the armor of Minerva," a reference to the Greek mythical armor which no man may pierce (snark, snark), worn by Minerva, who was unique in that she was not from Mt. Olympus, but from the isle of Lesbos (snark). Eventually, Dumas would join his friend Victor Hugo in exile, regardless. However, in this modern day, we no longer live in these times, and authors are by no means compelled in a similar way to avoid depictions of homosexuality. To then contextually place sexuality upon him is not necessarily wrong, but does show tremendous arrogance when she acts incredulous to people when they seem confused.
Moreover, this shows that Ms. Rowling is by no means familiar with modern concepts concerning text, semiology, and textual interpretation. Roland Barthes wrote about the philosophy of textual interpretation extensively, and most of his arguments are quite persuasive on the matter. Considering philosophical point number one above, we see that the author is not the "god" of the world that they create, rather the text takes on a life of its own in the minds of those who read it, and differing interpretations are not inherently more or less true than others. But, more to the point, since we are talking about fiction, it is impossible for there to be fact within its sphere. That is, fiction itself cannot contain fact. Thus, there is no fact of Dumbledore's sexuality, there is only the fact that is sexuality is not textually established.
To expound: Note that fact and fiction here do not equal "truth" and "lies." Fictional work cannot contain fact, otherwise it ceases to be fiction. But, factual work can contain fiction, just like my example above with our imaginary third friend. Thus, the text itself, outside of what it signifies, is the only fact, and what is signified is fiction. Then, we see that the only fact of the matter at hand is that Dumbledore's sexuality is not textually established, and the idea that he is a homosexual is contextual fiction. Meaning that Ms. Rowling is simply giving us her signified of the character, contextually, in an effort to persuade us to change our textual signified of Dumbledore.
This brings us to my second point: Ms. Rowling's statements are contextual, and should be taken as such. It is merely an argument for a specific reading of her text, and not a be-all end-all way to interpret it. Roland Barthes faced this same problem: He came of intellectual age after WWII, where the damage from Nazi "intellectualism" was immense. In order to solve the problem of how the Nazis co-opted and "misinterpreted" texts in order to fit their pre-established ideology. The works of artists where proclaimed to be proto-Nazi, precursors to Nazi ideology and thought. Too many artists were co-opted this way to list here, but Beethoven and Nietzsche are among the more common examples. After the war, intellectuals thought that by literally establishing "correct" interpretations of these texts, they could prevent this from occurring again. Barthes took the opposite stance and fought strongly against established reading of text. He correctly concluded that is was not the individual interpretation of a text that was damaging, but rather the assertion that one interpretation was correct or more true than another that was damaging. The most common way to do this was to appeal to authorial intent, as many in his time were still doing, but in his essay The Death of the Author, he points out that this is -at best- lazy and at worst dishonest. In the end, the only way to prevent artists from being co-opted again is destroy any concept of a "true" or "correct" interpretation of their work, and to allow the text itself to stand alone, independent of interpretation.
Note that I am not calling Ms. Rowling a Nazi, just saying that she treats her own texts like a fascist. And this is what I meant when I called her comments thoughtless, it is abundantly clear to me that she is not thinking her own actions through, certainly not with the clarity I would expect from an author of her standing. To be sure, she and her work have had a tremendously positive influence on the world, and helped inspire an entire generation of readers. However, if she is to continue her current actions, I cannot help but think her work will be tarnished, if only slightly.
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, and how they unwittingly damage themselves, their fans, and the work they have created.
The fan tweeted:
Ms. Rowling replied:
I doubt I need to add that the fan intended to use the word "see" in a figurative sense, and Ms Rowling replied -rather tongue-in-cheek- taking it in the literal sense. Perhaps she can be excused for this, as I am sure she has her share of internet trolls and may be somewhat exhausted of them, but it does not change the fact that her reply reveals some serious problems with how she sees herself and her body of work. She has also stated:
While her second sentence is true, her first is only true in a legal sense, not in a philosophical or semiological sense. There are two major philosophical statements in play here:
1) People absolutely have a right to interpret works of art as they see fit, and 2) Text itself is text itself, that which is outside of text can only be literally contextual.
When I say call the right of interpretation "absolute," I do so concretely, as there is no possible way to even begin to create shared signified among large groups of people even for a single word, let alone a work as long and as dense as her Harry Potter novels. To use a classic example: I will say the word "dog." What this signifies to you might be entirely different than what it signifies to me, and moreover, again entirely different to a third person. You could immediately think of Lassie saving Timmy from a well, I could think about my retriever urinating on my couch, while our third imaginary friend might have been attacked by a dog as a small child, and is now panicking. Certainly, we have definitions, but these actually become more and more inadequate as their corresponding words are used, as words then begin to signify concepts rather than textual definitions. For an example of this in action look to any major world religion, what is signified by their sacred text changes vastly and constantly, especially over generations.
The problem of what is signified by the signifier becomes compounded further when used for abstract concepts rather than concrete objects. I could bring a dog into a room, point at it, and say "dog." Even though our signified would not match entirely, we may have similar signified, though I imagine our third imaginary friend would be quite distressed at this turn of events. Now let's choose another three-letter word: "Gay," and now hopefully you can begin to "see" (meaning the word in the figurative sense) a part of my point. We can conduct this experiment with any number of words: "freedom" is a favorite of political scoundrels, for example.
Just as what is signified to me by the word "dog" is no more or less true than what is signified to you by that same word, what is signified to our third imaginary friend is every bit as real and true as well. Now instead of one word, imagine a system of texts containing one million, eight thousand words, and you will get some idea of what the Harry Potter novels look like from a semiological perspective.
Hopefully, this will be enough to have proven philosophical point number one above. People have an absolute, unassailable right to interpret text as they see fit. Moreover, be very wary of anyone who says differently, as this is likely a way to get you to do or to purchase something for them or from them.
So, our Harry Potter fan was demonstrably correct in her statement, that she did not see Dumbledore as gay, as she is speaking only of her own signified. Her interpretation of the text did not include Dumbledore as gay. If we are to ask ourselves why this occurred, we can come to no discernible answer, but one major possibly presents itself: Dumbledore's sexuality is not established textually, and it required a contextual argument from the author after publication.
Before moving on, it should be helpful to define the word "text" for the purposes of our conversation. And yes, I am well aware I spent much of this essay blowing the concepts of "definition" out of the water, but please bare with me as I am merely showing fundamental flaws in language, feel free to hate me if you think this makes me a terrible hypocrite. A "text" is really any whole work of art, in this case a book, or the whole series of novels. In semiotics, a text can also be -say- a sculpture, a painting, etc, but thankfully we do not have to broaden our signified for those in this case. (For gaming it would be interesting to argue as to whether source code could be considered part of the game's "text.")
So, if under many signified, Dumbledore's sexuality is not textually established in the text of the novels, and moreover, the author herself felt the need to contextually (lit. "alongside the text") comment on the matter, we can then deduce one thing: Ms. Rowling either failed, or did not intend in any clear manner to signify to the reader Dumbledore's sexuality. That is to say, she either slyly hid reference, or simply failed to properly communicate that idea. At its most basic form, fiction is simply the communication of ideas to a reader or audience. Oftentimes, though not always, the more complicated the idea, the more difficult it is to communicate, and sexuality can often be a complicated idea, particularly to those who have never struggled with their own sexual identity, considering the possibility of vastly different signified. And while this may correctly be seen as something of a luxury, perhaps it should be taken to account, as it is a relatively common one. If Ms. Rowling intended to slyly hide reference to Dumbledore's sexuality, then there is no logical reason for her to respond to her fan the way that she did. Thus, it is at least most likely that she failed to communicate this idea in the way that she intended.
Make no mistake, sly reference to non-traditional sexuality in literature is nothing new. In fact, it is nearly as old as literature itself. However, it is helpful to note that under most of these circumstances, authors could face ostracization, imprisonment, or even death for the mere mention of homosexuality. This is why -for example- Dumas chose to describe the character of Eugenee in The Count of Monte Cristo as "wearing the armor of Minerva," a reference to the Greek mythical armor which no man may pierce (snark, snark), worn by Minerva, who was unique in that she was not from Mt. Olympus, but from the isle of Lesbos (snark). Eventually, Dumas would join his friend Victor Hugo in exile, regardless. However, in this modern day, we no longer live in these times, and authors are by no means compelled in a similar way to avoid depictions of homosexuality. To then contextually place sexuality upon him is not necessarily wrong, but does show tremendous arrogance when she acts incredulous to people when they seem confused.
Moreover, this shows that Ms. Rowling is by no means familiar with modern concepts concerning text, semiology, and textual interpretation. Roland Barthes wrote about the philosophy of textual interpretation extensively, and most of his arguments are quite persuasive on the matter. Considering philosophical point number one above, we see that the author is not the "god" of the world that they create, rather the text takes on a life of its own in the minds of those who read it, and differing interpretations are not inherently more or less true than others. But, more to the point, since we are talking about fiction, it is impossible for there to be fact within its sphere. That is, fiction itself cannot contain fact. Thus, there is no fact of Dumbledore's sexuality, there is only the fact that is sexuality is not textually established.
To expound: Note that fact and fiction here do not equal "truth" and "lies." Fictional work cannot contain fact, otherwise it ceases to be fiction. But, factual work can contain fiction, just like my example above with our imaginary third friend. Thus, the text itself, outside of what it signifies, is the only fact, and what is signified is fiction. Then, we see that the only fact of the matter at hand is that Dumbledore's sexuality is not textually established, and the idea that he is a homosexual is contextual fiction. Meaning that Ms. Rowling is simply giving us her signified of the character, contextually, in an effort to persuade us to change our textual signified of Dumbledore.
This brings us to my second point: Ms. Rowling's statements are contextual, and should be taken as such. It is merely an argument for a specific reading of her text, and not a be-all end-all way to interpret it. Roland Barthes faced this same problem: He came of intellectual age after WWII, where the damage from Nazi "intellectualism" was immense. In order to solve the problem of how the Nazis co-opted and "misinterpreted" texts in order to fit their pre-established ideology. The works of artists where proclaimed to be proto-Nazi, precursors to Nazi ideology and thought. Too many artists were co-opted this way to list here, but Beethoven and Nietzsche are among the more common examples. After the war, intellectuals thought that by literally establishing "correct" interpretations of these texts, they could prevent this from occurring again. Barthes took the opposite stance and fought strongly against established reading of text. He correctly concluded that is was not the individual interpretation of a text that was damaging, but rather the assertion that one interpretation was correct or more true than another that was damaging. The most common way to do this was to appeal to authorial intent, as many in his time were still doing, but in his essay The Death of the Author, he points out that this is -at best- lazy and at worst dishonest. In the end, the only way to prevent artists from being co-opted again is destroy any concept of a "true" or "correct" interpretation of their work, and to allow the text itself to stand alone, independent of interpretation.
Note that I am not calling Ms. Rowling a Nazi, just saying that she treats her own texts like a fascist. And this is what I meant when I called her comments thoughtless, it is abundantly clear to me that she is not thinking her own actions through, certainly not with the clarity I would expect from an author of her standing. To be sure, she and her work have had a tremendously positive influence on the world, and helped inspire an entire generation of readers. However, if she is to continue her current actions, I cannot help but think her work will be tarnished, if only slightly.
