Oh, Neil

[eumelia]

From a writer I lost a whole lot of respect for, to a writer I can only keep loving more and more.

Flowers of Romance

You always wind up knowing more about your characters than you can get onto the page. Pages are finite, and the story isn't about giving you all the information about everyone in it any more than life is. Things the author knows about characters (or at least, strongly suspects -- it's never really real until it hits the page, because the process of writing is also a process of discovery) that don't make it onto the page could include the characters' backstory, what they like to eat, the toothpaste they use, what happens to them after the story is over or before it began, and what they do in bed. That something didn't turn up in the books just means it didn't make it onto the page or wasn't relevant to the story.

This is of course out of context.
But I feel it reaffirms my disdain for JKR post-canon retcon, which is simply a marketing ploy, because the sales are dropping... I mean those who are fans bought the book the first day and week, those who aren't either don't read "Harry Potter" or will get it whenever.

I must say I'm interested what will be written in future editions of the books, or if JKR ever releases (Like Neil Gaiman has) her "preferred text" editions.

But Neil Gaiman is a better writer than JKR can ever hope to be, and knows how to pick and chose the information he puts in his stories and books without it seeming contrived or irrelevant.
A few years ago, JKR's statement wouldn't have made as many waves as it had, nor would it have been remembered, now it's on the Internet and is embedded in the meta-cannon of the books.

But still, it isn't really Cannon, it isn't written in the books and thus cannot be regarded as a Truth in the books. It's no better than fan-speculation, despite her being the Author and she may know better than us all. Her statement can be refuted by simply saying "It isn't in the book".
It's that simple.

ETA: And already people are saying Neil jumped the "Outing" bandwagon. May I just say o_O.

In addition, the genocide in Darfur must be stopped.

וכמו כן, צריך לעצור את רצח העם בדרפור.

Comments

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

I don't give a damn about Harry Potter but I disagree that Rowling's revelation that Dumbledore is gay is not canon because "it wasn't in the book" and though I agree that it can be waved away or ignored because it wasn't in the book, I find it a little silly to say that her statement as the author is no better than fan-speculation.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's a little silly, but it really bothers me the way it was stated, presented, said what-have-you. Retcon isn't cannon, if she's going to write an appendix Tolkien Style, I'll accept it as "proper" cannon, but in an interview as a cheap publicity ploy... colour me disappointed. And I'd feel the same way if she'd said "He was a widower", or "He was married, but his wife isn't at...". The integrity of the character suffers from that kind of revelation and it shows the author lacks the integrity to put in information that was character essential or to keep non-essential information and let the characters be as they may. JKR didn't have to answer the question the way she did, where she shows her prejudice more than she thinks.

Maybe I'm sensitive, but I'm a Potterhead and this stuff is important to me as a reader and as a participant in fandom.

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Sorry if my saying I don't give a damn came off as dismissive. My point in saying that was to try to show I'm impartial and have no emotional investment in the work. That said, I do understand your annoyance and agree that it was just a cheap publicity stunt from everything I've read about it. I'm only disagreeing that her word as the sole author of her works is no more important or valid than fan speculation.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

No prob.

I think fan speculation is very important and valid, I have seven Buffy books written about the philosophy, art, psychology and other things of that kind written by fans who happen to be academics or people interested in the cultural and media impact of Buffy. If someone had taken all the info we got on a character and extrapolated from that info that he or she was gay, then I'd probably think, hmmm, cool didn't think of that, that way.
JKR using it as a publicity ploy makes me think a whole lot less of her as an author.

But I suppose, this one time, we shall have to agree to disagree :)

[aesiron.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that fan speculation is very important and there's a lot of fanon in Star Trek that I consider as much canon as anything written by Roddenberry, Behr, Piller, or Bermaga (McCoy's daughter Joanna, for instance) but I still think that their word as the producers and creators is more important. I also think Xander's at least bi, his on-screen hetero-ness be damned. He so obviously wanted both Riley and Oz. :p

We will just have to agree to disagree though, yes. :)

[lord-dingsi.livejournal.com]

Funny -- another commenter, in a different thread, was saying JK Rowling was "jumping on the Gay bandwagon". Which kinda implied there's this MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GLBT CHARACTERS EVERWHERE, IT'S TRENDY MAN, and I was all "... whut?"

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Right massive amounts of LGBT characters who are #1 the Heroes, #2 have stable relationships, #3 Aren't killed off at some point in the story... yep they're everywhere Dude.