In favour of icebergs
Oct. 23rd, 2007 07:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sheenaghpughTo make it clear, first off: I am not a fan of Rowling as a writer. I think she falls into that quite large category of writers in certain genres who have good ideas but never develop a half-decent prose style; she writes flat and 2-D.
But in the recent kerfuffle about Dumbledore I am all on her side for purely writerly reasons. Of course I can see why people concerned with gay rights are saying, why didn't she write that into the books instead of saying it afterward; it would have given us this great boost/role model etc.
Only she isn't in that business, she's in the writing business and in this at least she acted exactly as a writer does. You tell your readers what they need to know. You yourself may know umpteen facts about your characters that you never choose to pass on to the reader, because they don't happen to be relevant to the story. They still matter because the knowledge of them gives you a priceless authority and security in dealing with the character; they are the seven-eighths of the iceberg that can't be seen on the surface. Put it all on the surface and you rob the reader of the chance to get to know this person the way they would in real life, slowly, from what he says and does; you also rob the character of any mystery and possibility.
As to the "why say it now" question, she was giving an interview in which she got asked a direct question on the man's love life, and answered it honestly. AFAIK, no-one has asked it before; maybe they should have. But to say "if it was so, it should have been in the books" is to misunderstand how authors work. You don't put anything in just because it's so, unless it has a clear bearing on the story. Dumbledore was the headmaster of a boarding school. Whatever his sexual inclinations, he was scarcely likely to be making a parade of them in that situation (the mere fact that he was an elderly bachelor gave some hint for readers if they wanted it) nor as far as I can see were they relevant to his role in the books. Much as I hate to disagree with the (truly heroic) Peter Tatchell, I'd have thought, if anything, that it makes a better point on his side for her to say so casually, after the event, "oh well, he was gay of course", as if it simply hadn't been necessary to mention it and nobody should be surprised, because that's pretty much how it should be.
Austen, apparently, used to indulge family and friends with answers to questions like "who did Kitty Bennet marry?" She knew, and didn't mind answering honestly when asked, but it didn't mean she had to put it in the book in the first place.... oh hang Kitty, what has she to do with it?
But in the recent kerfuffle about Dumbledore I am all on her side for purely writerly reasons. Of course I can see why people concerned with gay rights are saying, why didn't she write that into the books instead of saying it afterward; it would have given us this great boost/role model etc.
Only she isn't in that business, she's in the writing business and in this at least she acted exactly as a writer does. You tell your readers what they need to know. You yourself may know umpteen facts about your characters that you never choose to pass on to the reader, because they don't happen to be relevant to the story. They still matter because the knowledge of them gives you a priceless authority and security in dealing with the character; they are the seven-eighths of the iceberg that can't be seen on the surface. Put it all on the surface and you rob the reader of the chance to get to know this person the way they would in real life, slowly, from what he says and does; you also rob the character of any mystery and possibility.
As to the "why say it now" question, she was giving an interview in which she got asked a direct question on the man's love life, and answered it honestly. AFAIK, no-one has asked it before; maybe they should have. But to say "if it was so, it should have been in the books" is to misunderstand how authors work. You don't put anything in just because it's so, unless it has a clear bearing on the story. Dumbledore was the headmaster of a boarding school. Whatever his sexual inclinations, he was scarcely likely to be making a parade of them in that situation (the mere fact that he was an elderly bachelor gave some hint for readers if they wanted it) nor as far as I can see were they relevant to his role in the books. Much as I hate to disagree with the (truly heroic) Peter Tatchell, I'd have thought, if anything, that it makes a better point on his side for her to say so casually, after the event, "oh well, he was gay of course", as if it simply hadn't been necessary to mention it and nobody should be surprised, because that's pretty much how it should be.
Austen, apparently, used to indulge family and friends with answers to questions like "who did Kitty Bennet marry?" She knew, and didn't mind answering honestly when asked, but it didn't mean she had to put it in the book in the first place.... oh hang Kitty, what has she to do with it?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 07:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 07:52 am (UTC)Whether one likes the HP books or not, the fact remains that she had the right to decide, rightly or wrongly, what was relevant to the books, rather than what would make a small* but voal minority happy.
*And whether 'HP fandom' admits it or not, they are a tiny minority in her incoceivably huge readership.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 08:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 09:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 09:46 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 10:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 10:26 am (UTC)Good lord. Well, that explains why the last book was so damn Albuslashy then (that whole thing with the Bad Dude in Dumbledore's past that he was so keen on was gratifyingly vibey).
Agreed on the You Don't Spoonfeed People Everyfink - what on earth would be the point of reading if one did?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 10:58 am (UTC)And I'm glad to see that Neil Gaiman has been saying something similar, as another writer.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 12:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 02:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 05:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 07:48 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 08:12 pm (UTC)Somewhere in Milledgeville, Georgia, Flannery O'Connor is trying to claw her way out of her grave. This sounds like a debate she'd love to comment upon and use as an excuse to scare the crap out of everyone running the Andalusia gift shop right before Halloween. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 08:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 08:24 pm (UTC)I'm not sure what they expected her to do if that's what they're feeling. Shoehorn his sexuality into the story just to make a point? As I've said, I'm not an HP fan, but it sounds to me like any reveal of Dumbledore's sexuality would have had no bearing on the overall story and might even have been a distraction away from the main plot points and character arcs. Speaking as a bisexual, I can say, "Yes, this would have been nice," but speaking as a writer, I can totally understand where she would have thought, "This just doesn't belong in here anywhere."
Interesting. Very, very interesting.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 09:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-23 08:05 pm (UTC)I also agree with the person who said they liked that Dumbledore's sexuality wasn't part of the story (or just hinted at) because it was just part of him; it didn't define him as it does some some gay characters.