Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: Skar on October 24, 2007, 11:18:09 PM
-
Who knew? (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/20/harry.potter.ap/)
Discuss...
I found out about this a few days ago and haven't figured out how to respond yet. Why be an activist now? Make him gay in the books if you really want to make a statement. Doing it after the fact seems kind of lame and weak.
Like, "I really wanted the money so I couldn't put him in the books, but now I really want the activist props, so I'm going to 'reveal' it."
-
My understanding was she was asked by a fan if he was and she replied yes, could be wrong though.
In the same discussion she said the series was very Christian centric and she didn't go heavily into until the last book because she didn't want to give away anything.
-
There is one thing I don't like about this annoucement. I don't like the fact that when children reread the books (and you know they will) they will be looking at Dumbledore's and Harry's relationship differently . . . and possibily suspiciously. This might effect some of that "magic moment" they first had when reading the series. I don't have a problem reading about a character who is gay but as an author don't decide (or announce) it after the fact. Make your case in your writing and be done with it. As a reader I feel like I've been sucker-punched and then laughed at.
-
I think way too much is being made of it. I can't really care about it. I mean, the only reason it's coming up is because people refuse to use their imagination and think of what happened to the characters or fill in the blank. Blah. The series is over. If you want to tell us more about the characters, write another frickin book. Otherwise, Rowling, fans, both of you, shut up.
-
I think it's pretty lame. If Dumbledore was gay, and this never came up at all (not even in Skeeter's controversial biography) in the text, then it seems inconsistent to me.
I find myself thinking the same way as Skar.
-
I agree with Fells points.
Mostly I just think it's stupid to bring it up now.
Course, I now see Dumbledore portrayal in the movies being changed. If they make a 7th movie there will be discussion or rumors of some erotic scene with Dumbledore and Grindelwald to appease the gay rights movement.
-
Actually, all the reports I read say that this came out not because a fan asked, but because she saw the movie script for book 6 and the script referred to an old love interest of Dumbledore's--a girl. And she said, well, no, that won't work, because he's gay. She then went on to say that the reason Dumbledore was so blind to Grundelwald's evil was because he was in love with him.
I personally don't think it was necessary, but it was, in fact, apparently something she'd intended as part of the backstory at least as long ago as writing book 7.
-
Bleh.
-
One young fan asked if Dumbledore finds “true love,” and Ms. Rowling replied, “Dumbledore is gay.”
I got that from the NYTIMES website.
I think it's a stupid publicity stunt. And that my kids will never hear it brought up in our house. when they are older and have figured it out on their own then they can be as offended as I am.
It does sort of ruin the series though. I'll try to forget it was ever said.
-
I mean, the only reason it's coming up is because people refuse to use their imagination and think of what happened to the characters or fill in the blank. Blah.
Knew it all along did you? Ol' Dumbledore and Harry make quite the Spartan couple, no?
-
I agree with Charity and plan to do the same thing. I love the books. I'm going to ignore what Rowling said and still treat Dumbledore as not gay, and not mention it to my kids when we read. I REALLY hope they don't include anything about it in the movies. It may just ruin them for me. I really don't see how it helps the storyline.
-
She then went on to say that the reason Dumbledore was so blind to Grundelwald's evil was because he was in love with him.
I thought, from reading the book, that he was blind to Grundelwald's evil because of his love for power. And it made him more noble when he declined to be Minister of Magic because after his experience with Grundelwald he recognized that he couldn't trust himself with that much power.
But perhaps, if you want to read that he is "gay," there is nobility in his celibacy. Dimbledore is obviously an astute observer of human nature. If you take the Christian view you might say that he recognizes his desire for power as well as his other desires as being dangerous and not in either his or society's best interest. (And yes, I realize I could get flamed for this comment. :)
Or perhaps there is something of George Bernard Shaw in Rowling. In Pygmalion there is an attraction between Eliza and the Professor and apparently the fan fiction of the day had them getting married. But, apparently just to annoy people, Shaw claimed that Eliza married Freddy and had to work the rest of her life to take care of the worthless lump. So "ditto" on letting the book stand on it's own.
-
If you take the Christian view you might say that he recognizes his desire for power as well as his other desires as being dangerous and not in either his or society's best interest.
Amen brother. I hadn't looked at it that way. Dumbledore's gayness and his apparent celibacy (since absolutely nothing in the books even hints that he ever acted on his homosexual desires) is actually a stirring example of self-control, noble even. Since everyone knows that homosexual desires are, in fact, present in some segment of our population, Dumbledore's example is, in fact, a good one.
Way to go Rowling.
Of course, now that people are talking about this, it will behoove Rowling and/or same sex activists to ensure that Dumbledore is shown to have a gay lover in the films, self-denial being the absolute anathema of the same-sex movement.
-
She then went on to say that the reason Dumbledore was so blind to Grundelwald's evil was because he was in love with him.
I thought, from reading the book, that he was blind to Grundelwald's evil because of his love for power.
That's how I read it, too, and how I prefer to keep my reading. I was just reporting the author's thought process behind it that I'd heard elsewhere. However, there is that added layer now. It makes me think of Brideshead Revisited--even if there was never a homosexual relationship, there were some tendencies and subtle layers there that just made you go, "odd... why?"
-
My thoughts. Should get posted to TWG front page soon (http://www.timewastersguide.com/article/1605/EUOLolgy-Dumbledores-Homosexuality).
http://www.brandonsanderson.com/article.php?id=51
-
I think this essay pretty much sums up how I feel about it. I think the power thing in book 7 is the more powerful of the motivations, but adding the homosexuality as an added layer to the character.
(Note that I think that Rowling does, indeed, think that there is no moral issue with homosexuality. However, the depiction of Dumbledore in the books in no way implies an attempt on her part to 'subvert' your children or endorse homosexuality. If I were to depict an LDS person in a book, it would not be an attempt to convert people to my church, it would simply be an attempt at representing my world as I see it.)
The problem is that a lot of LDS people believe that the depiction of an LDS character should become a way to proselyte, which I feel means they really ought to be writing personal essays for the Ensign rather than fiction. Yet there's a whole industry of books built on this premise (not to say there isn't some fine LDS fiction out there, but the ones I consider fine tend to forget the preaching and just tell a good story).
-
I'm surprised people are still talking about this, it's the biggest non-issue I've seen blow up in a while--but such is the way of the interwebs, give them something stupid and pointless and there will be more drama around it then there is about something important like the fires in California.
I think Dennis Miller said it best when asked about this (paraphrasing): "I could care less about this. People's sex lives are boring and unimportant and I'm tired of hearing about them."
-
Sprig, it's a non-issue for you, and that's great. There are a lot of people for whom this is a big deal, even though I don't think it should be. That is why I wrote the essay. I was tired of hearing people (in real life, not on-line) talk about this issue ruining the books for them.
Stacer, I think you're exactly right on that count.
-
Someone who never so much as kisses another man is not, in my books, gay. If Dumbledore was gay, he should have been gay in the books, I say (there's nothing in the books that would really suggest that he was any more gay than, say, Professor McGonagall).
It just makes the series awfully inconsistent to me. Granted, I'm not a gung-ho Potter fan to begin with, and I was already questioning the value of reading past book three. This has only made me question Rowling's writing that much more.
-
Jade,
Don't know that it's worth arguing about, but by that same logic one could argue that ALL of the professors are gay, since we don't see them kissing members of the opposite sex either. The syllogism is flawed.
IE: We don't see Dumbledore kiss men, Only people we see kiss men can be gay, therefore Dumbledore cannot be gay.
We don't see him kiss women either. Does that mean he cannot be heterosexual?
It is good that we don't see him acting in a sexual manner in the books. It wouldn't be appropriate in the context to discuss his romantic inclinations either way. Therefore, what Rowling mentioned is not inconsistent, any more than a director is inconsistent for revealing scenes that were cut from a movie or discussing aspects of the characters which could not be covered in the time and scope allotted.
-
I mean, the only reason it's coming up is because people refuse to use their imagination and think of what happened to the characters or fill in the blank. Blah.
Knew it all along did you? Ol' Dumbledore and Harry make quite the Spartan couple, no?
I can honestly say that I am completely bewildered about this response and where it came from. I have never said, nor implied that I believe Dumbledore was gay before this. Why you would think so mystifies me.
Rather, I'm talking about excessive, after-the-fact world building and fan enforced faux development.
Look, he's not gay in the books. The relationship with Grundelwald is the only possible incident I can find that would indicate it other than wishful or other spurious thinking. And there's not really anything there that said they were in love or had a sexual relationship.
Thus, the only reason *at all* that Dumbledore is gay now is because Rawling said so --- many months after the last book was published, let alone written, let alone planned. Honestly, as far as I'm concerned that can hardly count. It's not in the book. it's not hinted at by the book. It's not implied by the book. It simply *not* *there.*
And why did it come out? not so much Rawling's fault but rabid fans who can't be happy imagining the world unstated their own way, but have to appeal to some sort of authority about a fictitious world that will not and cannot exist. Honestly, it's pathetic.
Hating Harry Potter because of this press statement is tantamount to saying that Star Wars: a New Hope sucks because 30 years after it was released someone published a book in which Luke Skywalker's nephew turned to the dark side. In fact, it's worse. because at least that was published in the context of the story, not just revealing a character tidbit that honestly, has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual artistic work in question.
*sigh*
As for Brandon's essay. I can say this, because brandon doesn't get upset. But you're wrong.
in Point two: Inclusion, while it might not reflect on the author's intention, is going to be counted as endorsement. And not jsut by the conservative homophobes you are wroking against. Try this quote from a lesbian I know:
"I nearly had a heart attack. >>;
Then I grabbed my HP book collection and hugged it to death. <33 'Cause it had gayness in it! AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT! "
I'll give you a link if you want a reference. Here's a somewhat more intelligently statement quote from the same conversation, also made by a lesbian:
"I think it does make a difference if a character in an infamous book is gay, a pretty big difference, too. Perhaps I'm standing alone on this, but I for one look forward to the day when gay/les/bi/trans topics become a popular thing in the media. Which it's getting there pretty fast, too. I mean, not only do we have shows like Will and Grace and The L word, but nowadays almost every popular shows features a little of the subject in it (Private Practice, Gray's Anatomy, Cover Girl commercials, etc). And at first, my reaction would be that they're kind of exploiting the issue and maybe even making it into some kind of trend. But if that's what it takes for a little change, I'm all for a little exploitation"
Nuff said on that, I guess. but I like to beat dead horses. I chafe at Stacer's comment about representing LDS persons in fiction as well. She has a point, but it ignores some aspects. Take Piers Anthony's character Lee in the Tarot series. Lee almost explicitly represents *all* LDS persons. He is blindly prejudiced and severely misrepresents nearly every doctrine mentioned. You don't believe this is going to color the world's perception of Latter-day Saints? If you don't, what's the point of art anyway? Whether you want it to or not, the art you create represents something of how you see the world, and a fan interpreting it that way is not just the fan's fault.
Point three also really irritated me. I guess it's because of what I read into it though, because you didn't say "don't react at all" you said "don't say it ruined it for you." If a character, *especially* a loved one, one held in a state of honor and esteem, is depicted with behavior you don't approve of, you have to say something. If Dumbledore were actually written gay, instead of the way it is, I would not consider myself a good parent if I let my child read that book, admire Dumbledore, and just be fine that the mentor is gay. I would be compelled to explain to my child that although Dumbledore had many great qualities, his homosexuality was not one of them. Maybe you can make that into good writing, since no one is perfect, but it can't be left ignored. That *does* mean acceptance, blatantly.
So I guess what I mean to say is, I agree with Sprig. It's really a non-issue unless a stupid fan question about something that has no context in the book actually means something to you. But since even brandon's making a big deal about it, I have to say that if she had actually depicted it, I would be much more disgusted.
Here's where I defend my own non-homophobia. I read The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. One of them is gay. And that is a big part of the book. Why? Because the author wanted to say something about Batman and Robin. It was a solid artistic and illustrative way of pointing out that Batman does not have teh gayzors for Robin. It's a paternal relationship, not a sodomistic one. make all the comments you want about pedophilia, it's not the point. By having a gay man who writes comics and gives everyone of his male heroes a teen sidekick realize, in the context of the congressional investigations, that being gay had nothing to do with those decisions, but was instead an expression of his desires for a more solid relationship with his father, he makes the point excellently.
Dumbledore, being gay, however, had nothing to do with the book.
I'm not against the the depiction of homosexuality. I think, however, that like extreme violence, drug use, and other deviant behavior, bandying it about is foolish. Yes, this comes from my religious understanding of it. I don't put haphazard heterosexual deviant behavior in my writing either. If it's there, it needs to be because you have something to say about it. Including it for no other reason than to include it lends it credence. Yeah, it exists. Ignoring it is foolish, though your argument about "it would make your gay children feel bad" is over-the-top and feels weak. but acknowledging it isn't helpful, or artistically accomplished.
-
Jade,
Don't know that it's worth arguing about, but by that same logic one could argue that ALL of the professors are gay, since we don't see them kissing members of the opposite sex either. The syllogism is flawed.
IE: We don't see Dumbledore kiss men, Only people we see kiss men can be gay, therefore Dumbledore cannot be gay.
We don't see him kiss women either. Does that mean he cannot be heterosexual?
That would be a false dichotomy. If he doesn't kiss women or men, by Jade's logic he is asexual -- ie he does not have sexual feelings for anyone.
Ie, by Jade's presentation, not kissing women does not mean "he's gay" it means "he's not heterosexual." Not kissing men doesn't mean "he's heterosexual" but means "he's not homosexual." since he does either, he must fit into a category that is neither hetero- nor homosexual. My confusion about what people think pansexualism actually is notwithstanding, I know that certainly leaves asexuality.
Perhaps he's a eunuch?
-
Or maybe he's just a fictional character?
-
I have to disagree with Brandon in that knowing Dumbledore is gay doesn't help me know more about the character. If anything it makes me think that that character was poorly written. I now have all these questions about Dumbledore that weren't answered in the books such as what does the wizardry world think of homosexuals? Another is did Dumbledore ever come out to other people? Was it acceptable for Dumbledore to be gay during the 1950s because he was in the wizarding world? If all Dumbledore has was a passing fancy for one other man, but never involved himself romantically with anyone, then he really is asexual.
I can see why J.K. Rawlings wouldn't have included this in the books because including it would have probably would have detracted from the focus of the story.
Still, it's just dumb to me for J.K. Rawling to say Dumbledor is gay. First, being homosexual is a behavior, not a physical property. To be homosexual you have to engage in homosexual behavior. It's not like having blue eyes or brown. You can't be autistic without engaging in autistic behavior. Doesn't matter if the cause is by choice or inherited. Dumbledore never engaged in homosexual behavior (actions, thoughts, etc.) so saying he's gay after the fact is weak. It's like having a written a novel about a serial killer, saying he's a serial killer through the entire novel, and never having him actually kill anyone.
I guess if Rawlings had said, "I had always thought that Dumbledore might be gay" and then acknowledged that Dumbledore being gay was never brought up in the books, it would be more passable to me. But saying Dumbledore is gay after the fact makes me thinkg Rawling forgot to write something into the books or is just a bad writer. Even if she had written a passage about Dumbledore being gay and his past homosexual relationships that was taken out of the books, that would be more acceptable. Just writing that a fictional character is gay doesn't make that fictional person gay--good writers show it.
-
I agree with Skar's first post. Either make a statement in the literature, or don't make the statement. Not putting it in the book and then talking about it afterwards is really spineless.
Really, I just don't care. Authors are suspect. She hasn't ruined anything. Author's don't get the luxury of interpreting their texts for people. Meaning is manufactured by the reader.
So pretty much, it doesn't matter what Rowling says is true about her books. If it's in the text, great. If it's not, it doesn't matter in the slightest.
-
Quote from: SaintEhlers on October 24, 2007, 18:12:58
I mean, the only reason it's coming up is because people refuse to use their imagination and think of what happened to the characters or fill in the blank. Blah.
Quote from Skar:
Knew it all along did you? Ol' Dumbledore and Harry make quite the Spartan couple, no?
I can honestly say that I am completely bewildered about this response and where it came from. I have never said, nor implied that I believe Dumbledore was gay before this. Why you would think so mystifies me.
I only said it because that sentence of yours could imply that anyone who used their imaginations to "fill in the blanks" would have come to the conclusion that Dumbledore was gay. And that the only reason most people hadn't before Rowling's announcement was because they lacked imagination. I thought it was amusing. Totally didn't mean to piss you off. Sorry ... again.
-
What irks me is that she drops the bomb then she says that her books are intended to promote tolerance. ::) okay, right, so you started writing the series for that purpose... I find it hard to believe that. and that is why it bugs me that she 'let it slip'
I agree that LDS writers can go a bit overboard with avoiding conflicts of this sort, but I don't think that there is any reason to add homosexuality into a book (which is what she did whether it is after the fact or not) originally aimed at children. They don't see the distinction as an adult would.
It is not the fact the Dumbledore is gay, it's the homosexuality in general. Our society keeps pushing the lines of 'tolerance' so when does it stop? Does anyone remember what happened to Ellen Deg.... well however you spell her last name, when she 'came out'?
They dropped her show, or how about Robert Jordan's books, are there any hints towards lesbianism in the first ones? No. but the further along they get, you can see how societies acceptance has changed. Ellen is once again popular, R. J.'s last book was rife with "pillow friends." So when do we stop allowing it to be acceptable. Brandon's blog said that he was 'liberal' by Utah standards, I had my Father in Law refuse to speak to me for two weeks (I was visiting) because he thought I was to 'liberal' but I do not agree that homosexuality can be accepted.
Wow... sorry, went on there a bit, hmm, wonder what time it is...
I still love the books though. And I think I'll convince myself that he 'overcame' his homosexuality, yes I think I like that.
-
Saint E. kind of spoke for me, but you have to remember that there is such a thing as "default". Unless you explicitly come out and say that someone is missing a hand, we're going to assume that said individual has two hands. Unless you explicitly say (or describe) that an individual is Autistic (or even simply has ADD), we're going to assume they aren't/don't. It's a Da Vinci Code-style "gotcha!" to come out and spring an alternative on the reader when it's not put into the books at all (which it certainly wasn't in books 1-6).
Dumbledore's portrayal in the books is, as E. suggests, asexual. There is nothing in the books that would suggest that he is explicitly (or even implicitly) homosexual or heterosexual; indeed, Skeeter's failure to mention Dumbledore's homosexuality, in my opinion, is more telling than the fact that Dumbledore once had a close friendship with another man (heaven forbid one should be able to have platonic realtionships with members of one's own gender!)
Rowling could have easily come out and said that Voldemort was gay, that Dumbledore suffered an accident on horseback as a young man and is (functionally) asexual, and that Prof. Sprout and Prof. McGonegal were illicit lovers; there would be as much in the books to support these claims as exists to support the claim that Dumbledore is homosexual. That's why I have a problem with her coming out and saying it; it's not in the books, and, IMO, really doesn't make me respect the books (or the characters contained therein) one whit more for her saying it. If anything, it really makes me respect them less (some issues just wouldn't be ignored. If Rowling were to come out and say that Ron were a Muslim or a Latter-day Saint, there would be more of a literary outrage, I would think, for the same reason I'm bothered by her calling Dumbledore gay. The only real difference is that the political context is different.
-
As a potter super-fan, I have to say that I don't believe this statement was really meant for the general public. Not in the way that they weren't supposed to find out, but it really wasn't said with them in mind.
Lots of posts on this topic (on several forums) have said something along the lines of:
"Well, it wasn't mentioned at all in the books so..."
I think in most cases that logic is sound. However, in the world of Harry Potter, there is a rather large cult following. There are many websites, thousands of fan fictions, millions of message board posts, and dozens of podcasts and bands all on the topic of Harry Potter.
The people involved in that kind of subculture were the intended audience of this. Yes, you can say since he was asexual in the books, that is what he is.
However, if you have ever listened to any of the Pottercast or Mugglecast podcasts, you know that there is a group of people out there who take the world of Harry Potter one step beyond the books. These two podcasts (both with now over 100 episodes, released weekly) have spent entire 1+ hour sessions digesting single statements made in interviews with JKR. Those fans want all the info on the world that JKR created that exists outside the books. If she says Dumbledore is gay, then he's gay. For us, the books are just one viewport into the world that she has created. That world is what we are interested in. If there are other ways she releases information about that world, then it's 'real.'
Reportedly, JKR has boxes and boxes full of notebooks with all kinds of 'extra' information about the books. I remember reading somewhere (might not be true) that she had a complete back story (complete with details such as parents names, birth dates and professions) of every single student in Harry's year (40 of them I believe). There are many Harry Potter fans who see the world as existing in those notebooks as well as in the novels.
IMO those fans are the ones that this information was for. The ones who want the information she used to create her world.
-
Given some of the silly faux-literati things Rowling has said about her own work, like that it’s not Fantasy, at all… And that she has stated that she intends only to write "literarily significant" books from now on. I tend to think she probably came up with the Dumbledore is Gay factoid in an attempt to give herself literary cred. Whether she came up with it on the spot or several books ago doesn't really matter.
EUOL would probably tell me that I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt. He would be right.
-
yes, phaz, that is the case. Something I'm very aware of
And I think these people are insane. Pick up another book, people. I know Shakespeare scholars who do less research on their subject of interest than Potter fans. And you will never convince me that Potter is worth that level of examination.
It's not just Potter either. The idiots who do this about Star Wars are just as frightening -- though granted most of their theories are based on things that are actually in a movie or a book not just tucked in a file box somewhere and ultimately determined unnecessary to the story.
-
I'm curious Saint E.
You don't like Jordan, you sound like your not too interested in Rowling (other than movies your wife's goes to without you ;))... so what do you like to read?
Or am I making a wrong assumption about you? ;)
-
SE likes to read comics, and .... um.... I think that's about it.
-
ah. ;) that explains why Jordan's details are infuriating....
-
woah woah woah woah here.
I'm trying to not be offended here. So we'll start with the stuff where you're just mislead. I did actually enjoy all 7 Harry Potter books. I haven't enjoyed a lick of the fan fiction or spurious external crap she's done. And very little of the fan art I've seen.
I read quite a bit more than comics. My favorite book less than 400 years old is Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory. However, my favorite fiction book ever is El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quijote. And I'm a *huge* fan of William Shakespeare. I just finished George R. R. Martin's second book (A Clash of Kings and I dove straight into The Princess Bride -- the novel, not the movie. Lest you think I'm too hoity toity and only read literary fiction (though I'm not sure TPB counts as literary) I've dabbled in and enjoyed a lot of the popular subgenres of speculative fiction as well, including bad military fiction (though good military fiction, like Starship Troopers is considerably better) and vampires. There are a number of YA books I love, though I'm not sure where the line is between that and teens, I'm sure Stacer will correct me if I categorized The Dark Is Rising and the Prydain Chronicles incorrectly, because those were fantastic series.
HOWEVER
What burns my biscuit is the apparently disparaging remark you've just made about comics. What was the last comic you read? Have you read anything Peter David wrote? Or Mark Waid? How about drawn by Alex Ross? You *cannot* read Kingdom Come or The Watchmen and come away telling me that they haven't created rich details and a complex setting. You may not like them, but good storytelling and interesting characters are *not* a problem with these books.
And, those are in the genre of Supers. I won't go into the non-fiction and non-supers fiction written by people like Art Spiegelman.
I don't like Jordan because he's boring, and he makes allusions that have nothing behind them.
Please tell me that your last post did not mean to imply that comics are beneath your notice. Because there's at least as much detail, "art" and quality in comic books than in any other genre of literature.
-
Not me, certainlly, I like comics, and greatly enjoyed the usagi you recommended to me. I think what she meant is that Jordan is too long for someone of your tastes. And, well, you wouldn't be the only one to get annoyed by the length and detail.
-
And you will never convince me that Potter is worth that level of examination.
It's not just Potter either. The idiots who do this about Star Wars are just as frightening -- though granted most of their theories are based on things that are actually in a movie or a book not just tucked in a file box somewhere and ultimately determined unnecessary to the story.
And you will never convince me that comics are worth any level of examination.
I however, do understand that my preferences and tastes and interests aren't universal, and fully understand how someone else can think that comics are for more than the Sunday paper.
-
And you will never convince me that comics are worth any level of examination.
The difference being that I have looked at Harry Potter thoughtfully, whereas obviously you have never read any comics *other* than the Sunday paper.
How someone can categorically write off an entire category mystifies me. You've just said that there is no way that a worthwhile message can be told in pictures and words combined. You really want to make such a statement? I have no idea how to respond to that, because it's manifestly foolish.
-
I have to agree with SE here and I"m not even much of a comic fan, but some of the stuff I've read (Identity crisis, Kingdom Come) are on par, if not better, then some of the fiction I've read. And lest face it, HP fan-dom is a little freaky. The fact there were people selling books, and making money, about what the ending of book 7 was months before it came out shows that people take it too seriously.
I can't comment on Jordan or Rowling's since I've never read any of their stuff but I can say Tolkien is incredibly boring (at least the Hobbit is) because he spends too much time on details.
-
And you will never convince me that comics are worth any level of examination.
That's like saying novels aren't worth any level of examination, or films aren't worth any level of examination.
I personally am fine with examination of Potter, as fine as I am with examination of pretty much anything. If you can get something out of it that someone else doesn't, bully for you.
-
And you will never convince me that comics are worth any level of examination.
That's like saying novels aren't worth any level of examination, or films aren't worth any level of examination.
I personally am fine with examination of Potter, as fine as I am with examination of pretty much anything. If you can get something out of it that someone else doesn't, bully for you.
That's the point I was trying to make.
Comics hold no interest to me. I've tried them, and didn't see what all the fuss was about. To me they aren't worth examining at all, and no one could convince me otherwise.
However, I realize that is just me. I'm not going to make a blanket statement saying they aren't worth examining for anyone, and anyone who spends time with them is 'wasting it.'
I happen to believe that people are free to enjoy reading/watching whatever it is they enjoy. They might go into it to the point where I would consider it a little strange, but I'm not going to go as far as some (SE) saying that they are wrong for doing so.
Just because I don't see what all the fuss is about personally, doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge that the fuss exists and is ok.
IMO telling people that they are "insane" or "idiots" or "frightening" for liking something as much as they do is offensive, ignorant and just plain closed minded. People enjoy things for different reasons. If they find something that convinces them to start a band, write some fiction, create some art or even dress up like a wizard and go to a conference, more power to them.
I could just as easily say that I have been to baseball games, and I don't see anything that says it should be worth as much effort as keeping track of stats during the game and going to 80 games a season. However, I wouldn't say that, because it would just be stupid to say so. Because while I might not see that there is anything to justify focusing on baseball that much, obviously many others do. For me to say they are wrong for doing so is just plain stupid.
-
How someone can categorically write off an entire category mystifies me.
Linguistically speaking, isn't "categorically" the only possible way to write off an entire category?
Sorry, not really adding anything, just ribbing SE.
-
the ribbing tickles
The difference, Phaz, is you're writing of an entire medium of communication. May as well say that nobody can say anything meaningful to you via email. You may not be interested in finding it, but do you *really* believe that no one can say anything meaningful to you through a comic?
On the other hand, I'm writing off a very small subset of works. I don't think that just because you can find something to say about a subject means the subject is worth talking about. Some works *are* better than others. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the lesser work, just that it doesn't have as much substance to it.
I enjoy watching Godzilla: Final Wars. It's a fun movie. But it's *not* worth spending hours a day thinking about. And anyone who would say it is has got some serious issues.
-
I don't like Jordan because he's boring, and he makes allusions that have nothing behind them.
that's what I meant, actually. And I even reworded my post cause I thought you might say that about comics. I grew up with X-men and Batman and Superman (my brother's more than me). I'm a particular softy for X-Men myself... I think I got a lot more of that than the others. But I don't mind comics at all.
I do have to say SE that there were about 3 titles you just spouted that I've never heard of. My husband is on a 'read the classics' kick and I must say I agree with him. If you read the classics you get a new feel for all sorts of things, like movies, since they .....blah what's the word I'm looking for.... hint (not the word...) towards lots of classics in movies. Plus you just sound really smart when you can talk like that... ;)
Spriggan!
No Harry Potter? No Wheel of Time? No Tolkien? Now I'm curious what you read? course that's not to say that if you haven't read those books you aren't well read, (I had a friend tell me that HP7 was possibly the best book she'd ever read, and I thought, "hmm, I definitely don't agree with that") in fact I wouldn't really judge someone as 'well read' by those at all.
Fantasy is a new thing for me, really, maybe 3 or 4 years of reading. Before that I was really into Historical Fiction, before that Murder Mysteries. Now I'm broadening again and perhaps soon will have gone on to a new genre....
I agree about The Hobbit, I read it after the LOTR and found it boring. But I love LOTR.
-
I read books like:
Object Oriented Programming
ActionScript Animation
PHP Security
Information Architecture for Designers
I really don't have interest in Fiction anymore, I'll read Brandon's and Mustard's books but really have no interest in anything else and haven't since I was a freshman in college. Harry Potter holds no interest to me because the movies are just live action Scooby-Do movies with out a talking dog -- and actually the ones I've seen were worse then the actual Scooby-Do movie.
-
Spriggan
I'm sorry but those books sound boring. ;)