I get a little upset sometimes when people bring Rowling into discussions in the other Flourish and Blotts fourms because this is the forum to discuss the literary aspects of the story, and why the author wrote it the way she did, the other four forums are for discussing the story. Is it just me who considers Art to be greater than the Artist? I do not think it maters whether or not an author intended to put into a story what a reader takes out of it. For example; I can see a negative side to the power of love, I think Harry's breakup with Ginny was more selfish than it was noble because he was more concerned with how he would feel if Ginny was hurt in the war than how Ginny would. I doubt that Rowling intended that, but does it matter? Does that make me wrong if she did not?

I stopped using the word "cannon" once the story was compleded because, to me, they are the same thing. I will accept the books mentioned in the story to be a part of it, but I will not accept comments made by the author outside of it to be a part of it. It is too late now to tell us Dumbledore's sexual orientation or that some of the Slytherin students returned to fight in the last battle. She could write an eighth book; but she cannot change, or add to, the seven that have already been published.

Does anyone agree?

All I can offer is from WB Yeats' Among School Children:

I somewhat agree. But it depends with each situation. Dumbledore sexuality is a miniscule, unimportant detail. It changes nothing. It's a petty fact. Some would argue that there are no petty facts.

But there is. I believe that if something was truly important, an author would find a way to work it in. No matter how great or small the detail, a way would be found.

You can look at the Epilogue in the opposite light. It was something major. It's an extremely important part of the story. It's something we're eager to accept as fact. Because we want to know more about what happened. And all the extra that she left out of the epilogue, is of as great importance as was within. And though we accept those details with more ease and satisfaction, I think there's bitterness there as well. If only for the fact, she could've bothered to include it to begin with.

I think the first thing you need to do is look to see whether the author ever did express such an opinion, because it seems to me you are ascribing a view to the author purely to disagree with it. My opinion is that Jo would agree with you somewhat, that there was a degree of selfishness in Harry's actions, but also nobility, but it was mostly purely practical, in that it would be impossible for Harry to stay Ginny's boyfriend and do what he had to do, and Ginny wouldn't want him to.

But I do take the things Jo says as canon unless there are good reasons not to (for example I don't accept that Fred died in 1997 even though it was on the family tree on her website because it contradicts what we already know). In other things you a free to pick and choose, for example it is clear that in Jo's opinion Harry was in a limbo between life and death at King's Cross, but she deliberately wrote it so it could be interpreted as just being inside his head (though I think the former does indeed fit better with what is written). Again with Dumbledore being gay I again think she left it open for them just to be good friends, though again I do think it fits better that there was a sexual attraction because it explains Dumbledore's actions better.

However I do think if you disagree with something Jo has said it is up to you to justify your opinion, because Jo has spent 17 years on these books and put a lot more thought into them than any of her fans, and written them according to her version of things she didn't put into the books, so you can't brush aside her opinions lightly.

I would appreciate it Roonwit, if in the future you would pay more attention to my use of words like "doubt" and "if" before accusing me of ascribing a view to the author purely to disagree with it. I did not claim to know what the author intended; what I implied was, I don't care.

I didn't challenge your agreeing with Rowling's statement that Hermione joined the Ministry in the Free Kreacher thread because I didn't want to argue the point there, in Notible Magical Names; I will here. I highly doubt that, for the same reason that a lot of people thought that Harry would not become an Auror, Hermione doesn't have much more respect for the Ministry than Harry does. The reason I agree with her about Harry becoming an Auror is that you cannot dedicate your life to putting Dark Wizards into Azkaban without working for the Ministry, however Hermione could do much more to secure Elf Rights working outside the Ministry then inside it.

Before you say it, I will agree that J.K.Rowling created Hermione Granger and she gets to decide her character. Nevertheless, now that the story has been published, Hermione belongs to we readers as much as she does to the author. You cannot sell your story and still own it.

Actually, she couldn't. Outside the ministry she would just be a voice that no-one has to listen to, and the ones who really need to listen won't. Inside the Ministry, she can legislate so that house elves get treated fairly, which since they don't want to be freed, is the best she can do, because Hermione finally recognizes that to improve the lot of the house elves she has to work with them, rather than pursue so ideological ideal that would only upset both wizards and house elves.

Could you enlighten me about this particular inconsistency? I must've missed it. Because I'm totally lost trying to figure it out.



Actually, this is beef I have with a lot of fans. Is HP great? Yes, I love it too. But that doesn't mean I fall to knees in worship of JKR, and treat every word and action we hear of her as the equivalent of God. I think too many people do. There's a mindset that, "that you have to agree with every she says and does 100%, just because". There doesn't even have to be rationale there.

But if you do disagree, even about something totally trivial, then there's a dozen people ready to jump down your neck. Just because you disagreed, and someone else can't take it. But this is what some people consider being a "true fan". It goes on to a point where a person can't even form an opinion of their own. Because even if it's actually a point contradictory to something "JKR herself said", they'd be contradicting her. It might sound ludicrous, but it happens nonetheless.

I think there are a few people in the Lexicon Steve thread that would disagree with you here....

I don't think it is a question of the art being greater than the artist, but that they are simply entirely different entities. Once a book is published and in the public forum I do see it as being outside of the authors control. People will see in it what they choose regardless of the authors intentions. My personal experience with this situation was with Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials. I was shocked after reading and interview with him to find that what I had taken from the book was in direct opposition to his fundamental beliefs and the very basis on which he wrote the series. But I didn't really care because as far as I was concerned once it was published it really wasn't any of his business what I or anyone else thought of it, that's our perogative to think what we choose

So I suppose I agree with you to a certain extent, but I think Jo is a unique situation. There have been very few series published in the way Harry was, with the author as involved with fans as Jo is. I welcome most of the additional info she offers and often find it enhances the story.


Reminds me of the tagline to the movie Flashdance : "When the Dancer becomes the Dance", Good reference

I think of it this way: Let's say I'm looking at a painting by an avant garde artist and I don't understand it at all. I take it at face value: A fellow museum visitor walks up beside me and tells me they've been pondering the piece for years and tell me their interpretation of it. I can accept that version or ponder it myself. Then, let's say the artist comes up to me and introduces himself. He tells me what he intended with the piece and what type of paint or materials he used. The same thing applies: I can take what he intended as my view of the piece or I can ponder it some more on my own. As for the type of paint and materials, that is indisuptable and something I accept as fact.

To bring it back to Jo and and the books, the paint is the equivalent of what the characters do for a living. Her view on where Harry was exactly in King's Cross is something I can accept or ponder on my own and come to my own conclusion. The fellow museum visitor is the equivalent of you fine scholars here.

Despite all that a creater will do to insure Creative rights, once it's released into the public - the work of Art evolves, changes, and affects people in myriads of ways. What people might not consider is the skill of communication. It's like having coding written for a computer program, but once out, there are viruses and glitches when it's put on the mainframe.

Some people hear the Words of the Written Creation, and it opens their Hearts and Imagination.
Some people see the Art of the Creation related to the Written word, and find themselves intriqued and pulled in,
Some people see the Film of the Creation, and hear the words have now become a living performance.
Some people relate to the Spoken Word of the Creation, that triggers a comfortable feeling as if you are relaxing with a new Friend.

I understand why J.K.Rowlings would like to keep creative rights in effect as long as she can. She is just trying to ensure that her creation doesn't turn into an unrecognizable weed patch of lost pathways far beyond the original work. Yet we do live in a diversified world where we don't all relate with communication on the same level, or in the same way.

I see her work as one that introduced many people to enjoying reading, but there are many branches on that tree she planted with Harry Potter. It will be remarkable to see how it will grow...

Hmm, while I see everyone's points about this being open to interpretation and that we will all bring our own world views to the party, so to speak, I do think that I agree with Roonwit: JKR's opinions on what her characters are like and why are, I feel, more valid than those of someone who is merely reading the text. I have written a book myself. Nothing like as intricate as Harry Potter and it will likely never see the light of day. But if it ever did there are things that I know about the characters and their motivations that inform how they acted but didn't 'make the cut' to get into the book. There are unnecessary scenes that have to be removed to make the story flow better, but they still happened to those charcters and will have an impact on how they may react later in the story. JKR wrote certain characters knowing things about them that didn't make the grade to give us a good story, or that took emphasis too far away from Harry. That doesn't mean that what she didn't put in didn't affect those characters and their actions. If she says DD is gay then he is: she wrote the books with that in mind and so this knowledge informed his character whether it was spelled out in the books or not.

I don't believe everything she says 'just because' ... I believe it because I understand how these details may have been fully worked out but not make it into the books. Now obviously other people are free to not believe what they hear from JKR, but to say that my interpretation is just as valid as hers just doesn't wash with me because I don't have the rich background history for the world and the characters that she does so to my mind her interpretation trumps mine, just as I feel my interpretation of my characters will trump that of someone not privy to the extra information I have.

The question is: does wanting to use our own interpretation over JKR's mean that the extra information that is in Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch Through the Ages or in the possible Scottish Book is invalid and you can choose to ignore that as well? Where do we draw the line? It's only her interpretation today because she just said it, but it's a part of the official HP world tomorrow because it's in a book?

To go back to the museum analogy; to me if there was a little bit with the artist's ideas on the work I would definitely choose to accept it. I don't have to accept other museum visitor's ideas at all. They are only as valid as mine and so I can just accept or ignore as I see fit ... but the artist is a different matter to me. If they have said nothing then I can interpret as I want to; if they have set out what they did and what they are saying with the work then to me that is fact. I can say they didn't do it very well, but I can't say that my idea is better. But that's just me. Others are obviously entitled to discount the artist as they see fit. It's just not what I do.

I would agree that it's unreasonable to say that someones personal interpretation can compare to Jo's, as her's is, in reality not an interpretation/opinion, but fact. She's the boss and what she says goes.

However I don't believe this view really comes in to question at any point because to my knowledge Jo has never (for the most part at least) expressed definitive opinions on how the story should be read/perceived. For example I've taken a number of leaps of the imagination with regard to the story that may be in conflict with what Jo has said or written, but she has never addressed these details and specifically said they're WRONG and thats not what I meant.

So to a certain extent I think this is what Professor_Nigellus was saying. It seemed to me that many people will rebuff an individuals take on the stories claiming "that's not what Jo says" however I disagree with Professor_Nigellus when it comes to the point of canon:


I do accept most of the extra-textual info Jo supplies as canon but I don't believe this information should be used to limit people's experiences or interpretations of the books.

I read Rowling's comments outside the books for insight into her intent (though some things she said before DH were misleading even if she claims she never misled her readers deliberately; eg the reason she gave pre-HBP for Dumbledore not giving Snape the DADA job). But if she fails to make that point in the books then she did not make it. If she intended a character to come across a certain way and readers see things differently - all the worse for Rowling.

(Regarding Hermione - I can see her becoming a political type and working in Regulation of Magical Creatures, but I wonder how much she really understands other magical beings, if she can appreciate that other kinds of beings may not think in the same terms as humans. My worst fear for her is that she might trigger the next goblin rebellion by some well-meaning but misguided policy. Did she ever learn respect of centaurs?)


FB and QA are considered canon by most because they are books from inside the Potterverse. Events stated in them are the equivalent of facts of history that Harry hears from Binns. FB is Harry's copy of the book, even the scribblings in it are Harry's and Ron's 'true' scribblings, including Ron's complaint that Fred took his pet puffskein to use as a bludger for practice. Whether the Scottish book will be considered canon by the more strict fans depends a lot on its format and the kind of information in it. An updated edition of 'Notable Magical Names' would be canon in the spirit of FB, a book of stories would be canon as an eighth book would have been. A list of clarifications and factoids, not presented as Potterverse internal literature, would probably not be viwed as canon in the strictest sense.

Edited:

If my or some other museum visitor's interpretation appears more consistent with the work as seen at the museum I'd accept that while the artist had a different intent, the other view is more correct and the artist had failed to make hir point, at least with part of the audience.

Actually, I don't think Jo misled her readers then. I think Dumbledore really didn't trust Snape not to have a relapse if exposed to the DADA job, though of course the cursed nature of the job (which was hinted at many times through the books) meaning that Snape wouldn't last long in it was also a reason. After all the love of the dark arts were what pulled him away from his one true love, so it could easily have continued to have a corrupting influence.
I think Hermione probably learned a lot by being in close contact with Kreacher during the trio's time at Grimmauld Place, and probably also from her experiences with Griphook. And I also doubt she will forget how nearly she came to grief at the hands of the centaurs as well, so I think she will treat them with appropriate respect also.

Well, I write to. So I know what you're saying, but I still don't share this mindset. Of course the writer knows things we don't know. And may never know for that matter. But still, the cut piece can't be that critical. Or they wouldn't be cut to begin with.

Does that make the cut pieces insignificant? It does somewhat. Yes, because it can still impact the story. But it might be in a way that's so indirect it doesn't really matter. No, because the new information doesn't actually change the story.

Adding to a story isn't the same as changing it. A few sentences isn't the same as a missing chapter. Even though a few sentences can be of great magnitude, it still would've been unreasonable to leave them out it they were to actually effect the story.

I think we're muddling the difference between fact and feeling. I think in the matter of Dumbledore's sexuality, it's purely a matter of perception. It's only different because "we want it to feel that way". A fact can't change a story if doesn't change anything the character did or didn't do.

The interpretation is an entirely different matter. A person can't write and try to deny people the right to form there own opinions. Because it'll happen whether they want their readers to or not. Even if they're only doing it subconsciously.

I think we were arguing about a point that's beside itself from the very beginning. Every author knows there'll be criticism. Good and bad reviews, more or less. It doesn't matter if it's a published novel or some silly fanfic. Once the decision comes to share it, you open it up for discussion. Which can also be criticism.

Where does criticism come from? It's rooted in individual interpretation and opinion. If an author can't accept this, then they shouldn't share it to begin with. All they can do is create it. After that point, it's out of there's hands. It's sort like having a kid. You can raise them, inform them of things you feel are right or wrong, etc. But once you've released them? They're out of your control. This is same concept, try as though we might to deny it.

Now look at the author as similar to a parent in the analogy. Does a parent know what's best? Most of the time, but not always. Is there opinion valid? Certainly, but disagreement with it doesn't make one right or wrong. It is not, however, the beginning and ending of all things. You can birth the child, but you can't control it's destiny.





But there are people who're like this. I can only explain it as "blind devotion". I've seen it repeatedly in several individuals in many places. For example, one day they're practically condemning a character to hell because they loath everything about them.

But with one unexpected tidbit of information, they're defending to them the death. Maybe they truly have had a change of heart about how they feel about the character in question. Maybe not. It could be that they're just so desperate for their every word and thought to jive with the author said, they deny themselves any free thought or opinion. Not just on that matter. But in regards to the work as whole.

Which, in itself, isn't a good. It's how people get strung along becoming vehement supporters of something without any kind of clue as to what it's actually about. Yes, it only a book. But this kind of depth of support from a person, and an author could pretty much burn what they previously wrote, do something new and entirely contrary to the former, and then they'd go around accepting it as the right version just because the author wrote a new one. I know it's extreme, but I know people who'd react that way.

First of all, my thanks to everyone who posted in this thread. I have been wondering about that for a long time and I don't know why it took me so long to ask. I agree with most of what I have read here and have no wish to argue the parts I don't agree with. Each of us will take from these books what we will and none of us have any right to tell us we are doing it wrong.

I certainly don't see anything wrong with readers using their own imaginations to fill in the blanks Azkaban's Angel, in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more of it. The reason there is a Scribbulus button under my name is that I couldn't find anybody who wanted to do that in Magical Theroy concerning the function and operation of a Time-Turner; so I did it on my own and submitted it to Scribbulus. In the thread discussing it in that forum, a few people used the word "interesting" but nobody used the word "agree" and that was the end of it. It served its purpose though; it got it out of me and it is there to share. I still hold that theory (silghtly modified) and I am comfortable with it, even if nobody agrees. It works for me.

I have seen examples of the Author Worship Aphrodites Lady was referring to. Somone posted in another thread that "Jo often gives us information about other people's motives through Harry's thoughts". Thinking about it, I think he might have been close because I get the impression that she uses Harry to give us motivations of other characters when those motivations do not make much sense, such as Snape "hiding" his memories in a Pensieve or Voldemort taking Kreacher to the cave with him to "test his defenses". But if you suggest to some people that those characters might have had a different motive you can get a response that sounds a lot like "no, no, no, No, NO; Jo wanted us to believe THAT, so you should believe it. Why? Is there something wrong with thinking about the story and suspecting that the character might have had a different motivation than the one that the author suggested. Is it egoistical to think that is even theoretically possible? Should we be hanged for that?

As to the defininition of cannon, which was my secondary purpose in starting this discussion, people will define it as they will, and whatever they choose is fine with me. I don't use that word here. It shouldn't be a problem unless others expect me to accept their definition of it; whenever that happens, as far as I am concerned, the conversation is over. The reason I feel so strongly about this is that I agree with what Tolkien said in his essay "On Fary-Stories" about the importance of maintaining at least Suspension of Disbelief when reading a fary-story. When we acknowledge the existance of the author, we are admitting that the story is fiction; then none of it ever happened, both the magical world and all of its characters have ceased to exist: the story is dead - at least for me.

There are people who think just the opposite - that Rowling deliberately used someone like Harry - young, an outsider to wizarding culture (who remains more of an outsider than Hermione because of his isolation at 4PD during most of his summer breaks), not very observant, highly prejudiced of certain people (not only Snape) - as our vantage point into the story becasue it allows her to hide what really is going on. At least one of them thinks we still don't have the 'real' story. I tend to take Harry's or Hermione's observations just as such - somebody's thoughts, which may be right or wrong.

I think this issue really boils down to two questions: Is the author always the best interpreter of their work and how can we know that the author is telling us the truth about the genesis and/or meaning of their work? Both questions are in some sense related.

In the creation of any work of art, the complex web of interconnections between symbols, images and ideas frequently stem from the author's sub-conscious. While clearly in most instances they bring these into their consciousness in order to fashion a coherent work of art, it is quite plausible that there will be some they have missed and there are reports of artist's acknowledging that critics have seen subtleties in a work that they themselves may have overlooked. In other words, there can be aspects of a work of art for which the artist him/herself can neither explain nor is fully aware of their genesis. This is not to say that information provided by the artist about the artistic process and their intent is completely irrelevant and in fact, often can be a source of allowing the reader to gain a deeper understanding of the work. However, the text itself has to be the ultimate arbiter of what is actually there not what the artist him/herself says is there or what they intended to say. They may have failed getting a certain point across. It's one of the reasons why editors are so important, as often a third party can be a more astute judge as to whether the author has been successful in communicating what they intended to communicate and to get the author to clarify what might later be possible and justifiable misconceptions on the part of the reader.

I would disagree with JKR's own assessment of the character of Sirius Black as an example of arrested development due to having endured 12 years in Azkaban. I think she oversimplifies the situation with Sirius in this statement. It is not important here to go into details, just that within the text I can find evidence to show that Sirius has shown a maturity and wisdom in some respects that few people ever reach. Now if I were to take JKR up on this she may agree with me. What JKR may say about "Harry Potter" publicly and the complexity of her answers is going to depend upon the time constraints of an interview and/or her primary audience. Suppose she were to give an interview on a literary book program aimed purely at adults, it is not inconceivable that the critic may point out to her something in the text and she would reply, "I hadn't really thought of it like that but yes, I think you are right." Usually, when there is conflict about what a reader sees in the text and what the writer claims is there, it is a question of shades of grey in interpretation not complete contradiction. But this is just a matter of fact, in principle, however, a writer may delight in being deliberately misleading to stimulate further debate or else to be simply perverse for the sake of it. How then are we to know, save by referring directly to the text itself to repudiate the writer's false claim?

Years ago I listened to an interview on the radio with an Israeli artist. From his accent he must have been of east-European descent. He described a painting of his which was his interpretation of the crucifiction. But instead of having three men hanging from crosses he painted 3 potato-graters standing in the same positions that the three crosses are usually depicted in, because according to him potato graters represent all the suffering in the world. He was a bit concerned of how a neighbor of his, an Orthodox Jew, might react to the painting. Well, the neighbor saw the painting and his reaction was 'Oh, how beautiful! You painted Hanukkah!' Because nothing says Hanukkah more than potato graters, with which one makes Potato latkes. So what happened here? Did the neighbor fail to understand the painting? Did the artist fail in his choice of imagery? Or is the painting something that now exists in its own right and any interpretation that appears genuine to a viewer is legitimate? (As far as I remember, this particular artist was amused with the other interpretation.)

I think this is an excellent example that illustrates the dilemma of how much we should take an artist's interpretation of his/her own work into account when deciding what's there in the work. Visual art, especially that which is not figurative or where symbols are used (the graters to depict suffering) that are not meant to be read literally lends itself to greater ambiguity in interpretation than most literary works, save perhaps some forms of poetry. Hence in some visual art works there is a greater possibility also for a situation where 'the emperor has no clothes'. Did the artist fail in his choice of imagery? Maybe not, but then is the Orthodox Jew's interpretation invalid? Perhaps neither. I would be inclined to say that if the Orthodox Jew can find evidence in the work itself he would be justified in his interpretation but it wouldn't necessarily invalidate what the artist says. It all rests in the ambiguity of images, if either can give a coherent account of the work, based on what is there, then perhaps both interpretations are possible. Literature, because its medium is language by its very nature is less open to such ambiguity, though of course not entirely. Words and the sentences that are formed from them do have an objective meaning ie. their dennotation but then they also have their connotation and literature plays with this aspect more than most other text types. Even with figurative language, while not to be taken literally, still has its meaning rooted in what the words actually mean when looked up in a dictionary. There is no 'dictionary' for images though there are some that are fairly universally understood within a given culture eg. dove - peace and some artists even enjoy subverting their generally understood meaning for say, ironic effect. Yet, the irony would be missed by those who don't understand what they would usually mean.

I was thinking about JKR's recent revelation about Dumbledore's sexual orientation. This is a tricky one. It's not in the text except perhaps a reading between the lines, but neither is it contradicted in the text and it does provide a richer interpretation for why Dumbledore was so blinded by Grindelwald. The homosexual aspect is of little or no consequence but rather the fact that his love for Grindelwald had an erotic aspect. Also it ties in nicely with the way JKR plays with the variations of love. We see, for example, in Snape how erotic love has both its positive and negative consequences and this is true to a lesser degree with other characters. Love in the sense of Eros, is more than any other form of love portrayed in the series as a bit of a double-edged sword because eros is nearly always in part selfish. Even Harry is unreasonably resentful of Dean Thomas when he is dating Ginny and rejoices in their breakup. If, on the other hand, JKR was later to tell us Remus Lupin was homosexual or even bisexual this should be discounted. Not because it makes his relationship with Tonks impossible, as a point of fact, but simply because there is absolutely no evidence in the text, even reading between the lines; and it would only confuse our interpretation of events rather than add to them and would also seem to contradict all that can reasonably be gained from the text itself. If a revelation of this kind about Sirius were made I would also discount it. Nothing in the text, save his pictures of Muggle girls in his bedroom, would appear to contradict it (an erotic attraction to James excluded - his relationship with Lily would be necessarily strained and we know it wasn't) but there is not even a hint of it as there is in the case of Dumbledore and it would explain nothing.

I think a person can disagree. But you need to have argument that at the very least, is reasonable. I think some people our just out to corrupt a story to the point you can't tell what it's about, sheerly for the attention they'll draw to themselves.

I remember there was a group of people on this forum awhile who dissented to the point where they created their own forum. All some ridiculous, implausible theory. It had something to do with Dumbledore's death, and their refusal to accept it. I didn't closely follow any details. But come on? JKR isn't going to kill off a major character for kicks.

One of the things I like to do, is look at things from the character's point of view. Which is often not the same as the authors. Especially when you amass as many as HP has. You end go deep inside the personalities of some, while merely outlining others. Which can cause some to seem totally frivolous when there's much more to them than meets the eye.



I too feel this way. I think it's just really hard to put yourself in his shoes. He suffered in ways many people could never imagine. I felt we only really learned about him post OOTP. After his death. At least as far as deeper insight goes.

Tell that to Sirius/Lupin shippers and Snape/Lupin shippers. They have textual evidence they see as making their favorite ships plausible.

I'm loving this thread.

In the one the post HBP interviews, to deflect the conversation away from revealing the gist of then unwritten Prince's Tale chapter of DH, Jo says of Lupin:

I would imagine that Sirius, like Lupin, even if he was sexually attracted to James, as well as devoted to him, would have, like Lupin, put his loyalty to James first, and loved whatever and whoever/whomever (?) James loved. Sirius in love with James seems very possible. The photos of the Muggle girls were on his wall more to defy his parents, especially his mum, but in the meories in OOP and in DH, he is totally involved with James. When he asked James what house he preferred, he might as followed it up with Ruth's whether thou goest speech to her mother-in-law.

However is it possible, taking into account Dumbledore's own sexuality, that Dumbledore might projected his own experience with Grindlewald, who bright, brilliant, a little reckless and unbalanced, a bit like Sirius, to James and Sirius' friendship?

Lupin and Sirius could have been, using information in the text omni sexual beings. Lupin on one hand might have, as a youth shied away from a relationship with a woman for the very reasons he gives Tonks and later Harry. He feels his affliction would interfere with the rigors of a serious commitment, and at the time-even now--society might have regarded same sex relationships as boyhood flings or adventures not true commitments.

And one can, and many people have reflected this view of the Sirius/Lupin relationship from certain passages in the text.

Don't you think that could happen with literature too Canis? Take Marietta Edgecome's ongoing complexion problem for example. Hermione has been called petty and vindictive because she never lifted that jinx, yet that would be because, in the reader's imagination, she could have; but what if she couldn't? What if what Hermione did was turn the membership list for the D.A. into a self-enforcing Magical Contract, which even Dumbledore couldn't break when Harry's name was forged to one; that would make one's image of Hermione a little different, wouldn't it?

Does it matter which image Rowling intended to project? In Oryx's example the Orthodox Jew thought the painting was beautiful even though he saw it quite differently than the way the artist intended, and isn't that what art is all about?

Of course, I agree that literature is also open to interpretation about character's motivations etc. but the point I was making that at a certain level literature (save perhaps certain forms of poetry) is less open to ambiguity of interpretation that certain types of visual art. In the example you have given, the literal content of events is not in question only what this may say about how we are to interpret Hermione's character and motivation. In the example given of the paintings the disagreement between the interpretations was a more fundamental one. The artist thought he had painted a picture of the crucifixion and the Orthodox Jew thought it was a painting of Hannuka. I was arguing that the difference regarding visual art and literature with respect to ambiguity was one of degree, not absolutes.



I never said the pictures of Muggle girls on Sirius's bedroom wall confirmed his hetreosexuality absolutely and certainly defying his mother would have been one motivation for his putting them there, only that this is a possible contradiction in the text of Sirius not being gay. It's a different situation regarding Lupin and Lily. In this case, James was Lupin's primary friend and Lily someone he was fond of, maybe even attracted to, but never imagined he could win her for himself. Anyway, we don't really know what Lupin felt about Lily apart from obviously liking her. However Sirius really loved James and if that love had an erotic aspect, while his head probably would have accepted James's hetreosexuality, I find it psychologically implausible that there would not have been an element of jealousy in his feelings towards Lily. Not that he would have hated her, even been fond of her and accepted the situation for James's sake; but all the evidence points to there being not a shred of disappointment on Sirius's part when Lily married James. Quite the contrary, he welcomed her as a 'sister' just as James was a 'brother' to him.



I think I may have been misunderstood in what I intended regarding the difference between how we should take on board JKR's revelations about Dumbledore's sexual orientation and the hypothetical situation of her later revealing that either Lupin or Sirius were gay. Neither of these hypothetical revelations would add to our understanding of the text and character's motivations quite in contrast to the actual revelation about Dumbledore. And in the case of Lupin, all the evidence in the text would seem to contradict it. The Sirius/Lupin and Snape/Lupin ships, as far as I am aware, were postulated before DH came out and I believe the evidence against either Lupin or Snape being gay is far stronger than that they were. As for Sirius/Lupin - would this not have changed the entire dynamic of the Marauders whether consummated or not at Hogwarts or even afterwards? There is no solid textual evidence of Lupin, Sirius or Snape being gay, only rather slight possible inferences, and I would argue before DH came out, due to Lupin living with Sirius at Grimmauld Place and both men being seemingly confirmed bachelors. But isn't the fact that Lupin was there to stop Sirius climbing the walls and to keep an eye on him and the fact that Sirius had little opportunity to form a relationship with a witch and the difficulties of Lupin's condition more reasonable explanations?



The point I was really making is not that I would necessarily be in disagreement with what JKR actually thinks about Sirius but what she says about him in this statement. As I said, I thought it was an oversimplification, though not entirely false, to say Sirius was a case of arrested development. And there are good reasons, as I previously mentioned, why JKR may have oversimplified her analysis of Sirius in an interview situation. The difficulty is not just one of determining whether the author is the best interpreter of their work but also one of getting full access to what they really think about their work. Keeping that in mind, it is essential therefore when determining the validity of an interpretation of a work, author's or reader's, to take this into account and ultimately all that is there beyond dispute is the text itself.

? I don't recall intimating that you did say this.


I don't think Jo intended Sirius as a gay character. That said:

Even sisters and brother feel a bit of jealousy and resentment towards a sibling's spouse. And siblings have been known to love the same person. There is nothing to indicate that Sirius disliked Lily and for all we know, he could have, as Jo hints about Lupin, established his own friendship with Lily, exclusive of James as early as twelve or thirteen. I had thought that she might be the source of his Muggle paraphernalia.

I can imagine Sirius thinking if he cannot become James lover, then why not have James marry someone whom Sirius also liked and respected? Sirius might envy biology: that is he might regret that he cannot give James what Lily can or complete James in the same way Lily can. And feelings like that could fester into resentment had Lily made a move to cut Sirius out of James life.

But there is nothing to indicate that Lily ever attempted to exclude Sirius from James life, but welcomed him as a brother, a part of James. Whether Sirius loved James as brother or lover, he would have resented her for cutting him out of James' life. Many a spouse can tell horror stories about running afoul of the wife's/husband's best friend.

Although I personally don't believe Jo intended Sirius as a gay character, I think she intended us to understand that Sirius love for James was as David says of Jonathan, passing the love of women--deep and abiding. Sirius is not "in love" at the time of his incarceration. He strikes me as the kind of person who consider's sex, only sex, having made a different kind of commitment to James, Lily, and Harry. There are many bachelors, male and female, like this, who are content to allow loved ones to have families and make a commitment to them.

I know you said that could happen Canis, I am just not sure it is all that rare; I am sure you are right though that it is more common in visual art. Much of this story is open to interpretation which I am realizing more and more as I read the duel interpretation thread.

I don't follow the interviews so I am at a disadvantage here. From what I gather, what Rowling said was that she always thought of Dumbledore as being gay, so if that is how the character was written, I would agree that he was. However, it doesn't say that in the story, so readers who prefer to believe that he was not are free to do so.

When I first heard about the comment about Slytherin students returning to the battle with Slughorn it sounded like damage control to me, as though the author was responding to criticsm that the school never united in spite of the Sorting Hat's repeated call for it. The point that it would be like a Slytherin to go to the Hog's Head and contact his family before returning to the battle is a valid one, yet if another reader said that, I would think he was reaching in the attempt to make what he would prefer to believe more plausable. If the author says it it is seen differently, for reasons I have yet to understand.

That wasn't the only one. The same goes to her comment that the House of Slytherin became diluted and is no longer the pureblood bastion it once was. - Without textual support within the book of how this could have happened. Did something happen to the Sorting Hat? Or her explanations about the future of the dementors (their numbers went down as the mood improved and they are no longer used to guard Azkaban -> BTW with the number of arrests following the battle and the absence of dementors, it seems one of the careers with the greatest demand after DH would be prison guard). And her comments about future careers of main characters are an attempt to patch the hole left in the story - how does Wizarding Britain recover? Can it do so? Though I am stuck with the impression that little if anything was done to treat the *underlying* causes for the Voldemort crisis, that prejudices remained in place and very few people realize they are a problem, and that Wizarding Britain remains as vulnerable as ever to Dark Lords/Ladies rising every generation or two.

Because the author knows much more than she/he puts in the book? Putting everything you know about your world and its characters in writing would make an extremely boring, not to say unreadeble, book. That doesn't stop the author from knowing those "facts".

That's not the first time Jo takes for granted her readers will see something we don't. Like how Harry got the Marauders Map back, is one example. When asked, she seemed genuinely surprised that we didn't realise Harry had took it from Lupin's empty office. Not to mention the whole Elder wand and how to become it's master...

Perhaps this has to do with the HP books, AFAIK, not going through the "normal" editing process. Other author leave the finished manuscript to her/his editor, and then there is a period of discussion, suggestions and re-writing. Here, some authors have to resist a temptation to strangle the editor who wants most of the book re-written their way, but in most cases the editor can pick up those things that will cause the reader to go

I agree with you here. My only comment is that reading it with JKR's statement in mind does offer a richer explanation for why Dumbledore was so blinded by Grindelwald than what is actually written in the novel for reasons I have already mentioned. If we are giving a strictly literary analysis of "DH' it should probably be discounted as should any comment JKR makes about any characters that are not backed up by strong textual evidence. I think the 'Harry Potter" series presents a somewhat unusual problem in this regard, and leads to a temptation to be confused about the 'HP' world as a whole as imagined by JKR and including plausible further speculations by fans and what part of it is within the story itself as written. Any serious literary analysis must concentrate only on the story as written. The rest is fascinating certainly and no doubt fans will be arguing about it till the hippogriffs come home. The "Harry Potter" world, in a sense, has burst the banks of its own story and flooded into the public imagination as an imaginary world in its own right, beyond the margins of the work of fiction itself. When thinking in terms of the work of fiction itself , any interpretation of characters, however plausible within the world, is only valid with the backing of textual evidence and should also exclude any extra information JKR may give us that does not have textual support. When thinking about the world beyond the margins of the text, JKR's later comments of course are to be taken on board as she is, afterall, its originator; and as for speculations by fans the test is in how plausible they are within the world including all that JKR may have said. The important point here is to distinguish between the two and to be clear about what we are referring to.

I think part of the reason for he arguing is that the story isn't finished yet. While I agree that only the written story matters when it comes to literary analysis, much of what Jo says in her interviews will turn up in the Scottish Book.

I agree with you. There there should be some attempt, even with a young peoples novel to strive for some artistry in writing, and some attempt by readers to approach the novel as an art form, rather than a collection of events and dialog.

Sometimes she takes for granted that her audience is "in" on the inference also, or shares her affection or dislike for certain characters. Think of her statement concerning Lily's early attraction to James. But she has a varied audience, and not every woman goes to that Lizzie/Mister Darcy period where she doth protest too much to cover her attraction. But again, that is no reason for Jo to add in footnote: "Harry is wrong. His mum liked his Dad, she didn't like his behavior, and Snape was her best friend." in order for us to understand what she meant.

There are some things I do wonder if she left too much to inference: Snape's service in the Death Eaters or his friendship with Malfoy, how the first Order functioned, but even these matters might resurface if one puts aside the books for awhile and reads them later with fresh eyes. I'm always amazed by things I've missed in oft read books or oft seen films, after putting them aside and picking them up again.

I agree with those sentiments, I think that the thing that distinguishes true art from mere artifice is that it can be viewed from so many different points and that the viewer can extract new experience and meaning from each fresh viewing.

If that is what we feel about HP - certainly is for me - then it is truly art and from a solely postmodernist point of view if I derive some artistic merit from it and so distinguish it from art - then truly it is art.

If I had all the gaps between the lines filled in for me, then my experience would be very much diminished - I feel a degree of mystery helps feed the art.

I think it's quite sad that some readers feel they aren't worthy to interpret a book differently from its author.

If I can find textual evidence to support my interpretation, it's valid, even if the author stamps her foot and swears it isn't so.

Maybe we have to look at what Art conveys. Artists often attempt to get closer to "truth" through their work, and it is an exercise for themselves, as well as for those who behold it. Artistic expressions as conveyed in paintings, sculptures, musical pieces and even fine food do not rely on descriptive language to express their truths, they resonate within, and offer a direct line of communication into that particular moment of creation, as experienced by the artist him/her self.

Literature, on the other hand, has the potential to be Art, but doesn't always achieve it. Editing can often diffuse the author's truth with what actually gets conveyed to the reader, lending opportunities for varied interpretations to flourish, but far and away from what inspired the artist to put pen to paper.

I agree with that too for more reasons than you mentioned, it would also explain Elphais Doge's blind devotion to Dumbledore. My question though, is how important is it that that explanation came from the author? The idea that the membership list for the D.A. might have been a Magical Contract came from a reader, yet that also enhances the story, at least for some. Is it less valuable than the other because it did not come from the author?

The only difference here is that the topic is considered controversial to some degree or other in western society and some would consider it inappropriate for a large part of the intended audience of the books. While many fans speculated about potential same-sex pairings between Potterverse characters very few of those fans expected any of them to be intended by the author on grounds of 'she won't go there'. Before the author revealed that the AD/GG pairing was intended we did not know if homosexuality existed in the Potterverse (out-of-wedlock birth still does not). This is different from the DA contract, where a concept that was known to exist in the Potterverse (binding magical contract, introduced via the goblet of fire) was applied to some other situation. Now that we have one example of a same-sex couple the door is open to making any other such pairing hinted or implied one way or the other. Remus/Sirius? - they even end up together in the afterlife. Albus/Severus? heck, Albus manipulated Snape into everything, why not that as well, and Snape might feel a relationship with a man wouldn't be a betrayal of Lily's memory. etc etc. I even saw a way to fit Snape/Remus around canon (it did involve Albus finding out, demanding Snape to break the relationship up and Obliviating Snape - gives a very different feel to Lupin's words in HBP about the two of them never becoming bossom friends).

I would have to disagree with you here. If one were to argue that Sirius, Remus or Severus were gay, you could say just the same about Alexei Karenin (a closet gay) and offer it as a reason why Anna was so dissatisfied in her marriage with him. No serious interpreter of Tolstoy would argue that, although it is not explicitly contradicted in the text. To make a claim about any character in any novel you must have firm textual evidence for it. Absence of explicit textual contradiction is insufficient and certainly not grounds for making such an interpretation.

The implication of a romantic attachment between Sirius and Lupin because they were together in the after-life, as you mentioned, is very flimsy indeed. Tonks's absence in the forest scene has nothing to say about whether or not her and Lupin were together in the after-life, only that she did not mean as much to Harry as Lupin did. Fred is also absent. The apparition of the Marauders (minus Peter of course, plus Lily) is a projection of Harry's longing for those people who have been his greatest source of inspiration and are now his greatest source of comfort. They are not actually present save as a externalization of what is in Harry's heart as he goes to meet what he expects to be his death. What it does tell us, however, is that Lupin now stands very firmly alongside Sirius as one of the most beloved figures of his life, a shift perhaps from what had appeared to be his more secondary role in Harry's affections.

Okay, forgive me if I'm long-winded and sort of round about, it's one of my major faults but I swear there's a coherent point in here somewhere.

Anyway, here's the way I see it.... If I were to tell you a story about a girl I knew that you didn't and I ended the story when that girl turned twenty everything that has happened in her life since then would still have happened whether you choose to believe it or not, right? Same deal as I see it, I mean theoretically, no one can prove that in fact the story that takes place in these seven books didn't happen. Who's to say JKR isn't a squib who had her memory modified to make her think she dreamed it all up?
Seriously though, my point is I think that when it comes to facts regarding the characters, whatever she says is fact so far as we can know unless we find ourselves having a pint at the real Leaky Cauldron.
On the other hand interpretation is open-season, she's not an expert in psychology but she is the closest thing we've got to an expert on Sirius Black, so if she says his is a case of arrested development, I say, informed opinion... NOT fact... She says she's always seen Dumbledore as gay, I say, maybe he was just sappy like that. My willing suspension of disbelief stops just short of asking if she knows that for a fact or is she just assuming.

I disagree with the idea that acknowledging the author makes the story less real, at least for me it doesn't. I regard it as a story told by a person I don't know about a bunch of other people that they know, but I don't. I'm firmly holding onto the idea that there may just be a man called Harry with a beautiful red-haired wife and a couple of ornery kids who thinks it's downright hilarious that a bunch of muggles are going nuts over his life story. Or maybe his name is Bob, cuz I think it's likely that the names would've been changed to protect the International Statute of Wizarding Secrecy.

I guess what I'm getting at really is that isn't this what Tolkien referred to as sub-creation? She created it, by virtue of that fact it is now real, perhaps not real the way PCs and chipotle are real, but definitely in existence, right? As Dumbledore would say, of course it's all in her head, but why on earth should that mean it isn't real? And if it's now real, then the facts regarding later events would come from the same creator as the rest of the creation came from, right? But here's the twist: It isn't only in her mind anymore. I think Stephen King referred to writing as telepathy; the wholesale transfer of ideas from one mind to another. So, now this Potterverse, for lack of a better word, exists in many millions of minds, but why on earth should that mean that each and every one of them isn't real? Not to go all Thirteenth Story and His Dark Materials at the same time or anything, but I think that if you were to get your hands on the subtle knife you could find The Leaky Cauldron in some alternate London and Neville would be there terribly surprised that you knew who he was. But you would also be able to find a London with a Leaky Cauldron in which there is no Neville because by sharing her creation she has endowed with rights of creativity. (Forgive me, it's late and I have trouble with the wholesale transfer of ideas at the best of times, lol)
What I mean is that a person could read SS and decide not to go any further in the series except in their own head. would that make what they think happens to Harry at fifteen any less valid? Not really so long as it was reasonable from SS. Wouldn't be valid to me, but by virtue of their having thought it into existence it's real too. Does that make sense?
To my way of thinking, the whole concept of Canon is a different animal entirely. It refers more to the acknowledgement of the original creator as the rulemaker as it were, I think. Picture this, a new element is discovered next year and some accountant says, nope, it's not an element, if it's not in my periodic table from 1982 it's not an element. You gave up your right to find new elements as soon as you had this one published. Doesn't make sense does it? Ah, you say, but they would simply publish a new periodic table and then the element would be canon. So far the series that was supposed to spawn seven books has ten and an eleventh one promised. You never know what else she might write. So if she decides to write another actual narrative and says in there that Hermione works in the Ministry, will it count then? Canon means whatever the person using the word means when they say it and it means whatever the person reading the word thinks it means when they read it. I think I looked it up a few months ago and it said something like: a mutually agreed upon set of facts.
So maybe the real problem is that before two people can theorize together about the future of one of those through the window worlds, they've got to decide together which one of the worlds to go to.


PS Again, it's four in the morning for me and I'm exhausted but I've had this thread in my head all night and trying to get all my thoughts out in one post and have them make sense outside my head is grueling as I've been up for 24 hours. Please pardon any breach of ettiquette and anywhere that I forgot to mention that this is only my opinion, I'm still pretty new to the whole posting thing.

That's the question Elencha, are we talking about a story about people that Rowling knows and we don't, or a story about people that she made up? For me it has to be one or the other. I think that what Tolkien referred to as sub-creation is when readers can believe that a story like LOTR was actually written by Frodo Baggins even though they know it was not. That's what makes the story come alive. What makes this story come alive? Who is this Jo person that people keep talking about? Is she a squib who's memory Harry modified, or perhaps a muggle to whom Harry gave his biography to spite Eldred Worple? The story doesn't say: she doesn't exist in the sub-creation, only in the primary world.

I agree with va32h, not only that it is sad that readers feel that they are unworthy to use their own imaginations, but that they are not even allowed to do so. Isn't provoking the imagination one of the primary reasons that parents and teachers would rather see children reading than watching television or playing video games, or indeed, surfing the internet to find out what was in an author's imagination?

I'm sure JK Rowling did here very best in making the series but their is a saying that a person cannot please everybody which is true based from personal experience. So if there's any negative comments or reactions about her or the book, well its their problem because for me they are just a waste of time if we focus our attention to them. Plus it will on get worst if we keep on reading or listining to negative comments. Remeber "Think Positive".

Professor_Nigellus wrote:

Actually, va32h said:

"Interpret" and "use their own imagination" is not the same thing.

And where has Jo tried to clamp down on fans interpreting her work? I have seen endless of posts on various sites claiming that Jo shouldn't tell what she thinks happened to her characters between the last chapter of DH and the Epilogue. Unfortunately, lots of fans disagreed and asked her questions. Which she had the nerve to answer, instead of telling them to use their own imagination.

Like every other author Jo knows much more about her world and its characters than made it into the books. Personally, I like to learn about those things, and how an author thinks about her/his world(s).

Interpreting is another thing. To me, if Jo says DD was gay, it's a fact, though I might wish her hints were slightly clearer. However, I've found him a manipulative b------ from PS and onward, based from my reading of the books. It's not Jo's interpretion, but I can't see how she hinders me from expressing my opinion. She might disagree, but so does many fans.

Actually she calls him Machiavellian. So I don't think she really disagrees with you, though she wasn't trying to make it obvious from PS.

Well, I cannot speak for Rowling of course, but I don't think that her describing Dumbledore as Machiavellian (which he was) equates to her agreeing that he was a manipulative b------.

But, Eir de Scania, I definitely agree with your point about interpretation. When I found out that Dumbledore was gay, I didn't question whether or not this was fact/canon - whatever one wishes to call it!

Rowling created this world and everyone and everything in it, so if she says he was gay, then he was gay.

But my interpretation of his character was that he was neither gay/straight or anything, for that matter. Actually, I don't ever recall wondering about Dumbledore's love life, his relationships outside of Hogwarts or anything to do with his attractions or romantic life in general.

And while I certainly agree that he was a manipulator, I realize there are quite a few people who see him as cruel and uncaring and heartless (not saying you do, but many of my own friends believe this) - but I don't see him this way at all.

So who's "right" and who's "wrong"?

If Rowling were to come out and state that although Dumbledore had to manipulate his followers in order to conquer evil, (so yes, he was Machiavellian), but that this absolved him from being cold and unfeeling since he was doing it for everyone's good - would your interpretation of his character then change?

I'm only asking because I've wondered if my interpretation of Dumbledore would change if she were to come out and say the opposite - say that Dumbledore was purely a manipulator who didn't really care for anyone - including Harry or Snape - and was willing to sacrifice anybody to achieve his goals.

I still don't read him that way based on the story - but I'd imagine her making such statements would give me pause for thought, at the very least.

My overall interpretation of Dumbledore was that he was a Machiavelli with what passes for a heart, though I'm not sure he had room in that heart for anyone but Harry after that encounter in front of the Mirror of Erised, when he saw how similar their deepes desires were and he fell in paternal love with Harry. He sort of cared for other people, but compared with how he felt for Harry they were an afterthought. Everyone was a pawn in his plans, even Harry, though as we see in OOTP he sometimes got confused about his priorities because of his feelings for Harry. No chance of that happening with anyone else. Now, in a way this was a good thing, because keeping individuals happy while losing the cause is worse than stupid, but taking undue advantage of people's trust in him wasn't fair either.

My interpretion of any character would hardly be changed by anything Jo said. Not that I wouldn't consider it and try to understand why she wrote them the way I did. Just as I do in discussion with other fans.

I don't see DD as cold or unfeeling, but to caught up with his own brilliance. Just one person knowing the whole picture and expecting other to follow his orders is a road to disaster in RL. But I don't think empathy was one of DDs strong points. His treatment of Harry during OotP was outright cruel, but I doubt he could see that.

I'm a little on the fence with this. In many ways, I think the artist is greater because if it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have a story. Rowling spent 17 years of her life developing the plot and characters and writing the story, so if anyone dares to claim it, it should be her. However, the books are out there for everyone to read and we are free to interpret it anyway we want. However, I do believe that the stories are written a certain way for a reason. The artist wants us to view characters in a certain light. If this weren't the case, then anyone could write a story. What Rowling created is truley her own and we are free to interpret it however we like. But at the end of the day, it's her story and we should respect that.

I agree with you Prof. Nigellus. I think you're absolutely right.

Well, Professor, two things....
For one, I think it's entirely up to you which one of those as which you choose to see this particular instance of subcreation. If you choose to see it as a story about people she made up then I'd still say that what they do is her bailiwick and how to interpret what they do is the reader's. But I can see, in that case, where you'd say she doesn't exist in the subcreation and be a touch vexed that some Jo person keeps spoiling the masquerade as it were.
But, as I said, I personally view it the other way, if for no other reason than convenience. I know perfectly well that the story had a narrator and that she is never given a name in the stories. Neither is that witch with the fingernails down Knocturn Alley. I use my imagination to deal with the facts as presented. Spoken or written. See? Easy... If the fact is that some lady named Jo keeps telling stuff about my new friend Harry that someone would only know if they a) made him up or b) knew him personally, I choose the one that that's the most fun, she must know him, in fact all logic points to she's the narrator; (people keep saying she wrote the stories). See, and that just leads to all sorts of fun stuff, especially since she certainly appears to be a muggle...

Second, I don't think it has anything to do with a person's worth or their perception of their worth. I could go way OT here on the question of why one's worth is always brought up in such discussions but I won't. To put it in short form: I read books to pilfer off other people's imaginations, when I want to use mine, I write.

Just as an aside, Eir de Scandia, I'm not sure but I've heard that she said she's always seen him that way... I saw my kid brother as gay til he had his first kid... Fortunately, it didn't make him gay... LOL