Scalzi on Creationism

One of the finest bits of snark I've ever had the pleasure of reading.

John Scalzi on the Creationist Museum.

I Still Haven't Read HP and the Deathly Hallows

I've been meaning to write this for awhile. Inspired by laughingmagpie (who commented on an earlier thread) and scared into writing by petranef (because she's going to write about it too and I didn't want to get beat to the finish line).

Dumbledore. Gay. LGBT people cheer. The religious-right and their ideological bretheran wail and gnash their teeth. Most importantly, the legions of Potter fans file that information away as another interesting thing to know - like what year he graduated from Hogwarts or what color his hair was before it went silvery.

I think this is a good thing - the fans not getting too worked up over it in either direction I mean. It shows that negative consequences of this information are waning. Eventually it will be just another piece of information neutral in it's application. You'd want the info out there so that people could set you up for dates with the correct targets, but it's not otherwise noteworthy.

"Marvin dresses up like Judy Garland and dances around on stage at all the Queer events."
"Really? I dress up like a Scot and stomp around at all the SCA events."

All that's moot though, what I really wanted to talk about was Authorial Intentions. When claims are made about a character and what the final arbiter of that assertion should be.

If I say that Gandalf or Aslan are gay, fans of Tolkien and Lewis can rightly tell me I'm on crack. Nothing in the books support this and the authors said nothing to suggest it outside the books. (Note: aside from The Hobbit I've never read any Tolkien or Lewis so I don't know - maybe there is a line in one of the books to suggest one way or the other).

If Rowling turns around and says Dumbledore is gay, I think we just have to accept it - even if there is nothing to back this up in the books themselves. Why? Because Rowling is still alive and could keep writing books set in the universe. I haven't read HP7 so I have no idea if she's destroyed the universe or not, but she can certainly write a prequel set 100 years earlier if she so chooses.

Let me repeat that for emphasis - Rowling can, at any time, "prove" anything she says about the characters, simply by writing a story. By extension we have to accept that for good or ill without her having to go through with it. Her ability to write the story is what's important here, not whether the story exists or not. In this way she differs from dead authors like Tolkien.

Even if she doesn't, an author in the 21st century is not restricted to what exists on the written page. They can, if they desire, declare that the movies, video games and other media are canon. I submit that Rowling has done exactly that by changing some of the screenwriter's notes for the upcoming movies. This is of course exactly what she did and is why we're discussing a gay Dumbledore in the first place.

By all accounts, Rowling has been pretty clear about her liking how the movies are going. She has given them thumbs up when produced and gone so far as to give spoilers to the actors (notably Alan Rickman) to help them with their characterization.

I think a case can be made for disagreeing with the creator when the creator's own work can back you up. This pretty much means that the creator is contradicting themselves. In this case you can fanwank to your hearts content, making a case that your interpretation is truer to the character then the author's own.

Star Wars and it's multiple incarnations is my favorite for doing this. I think Han Solo shot Greedo from under the table and I don't think Luke screamed like a little girl while falling down the shaft in Cloud City. I even have the DVD to back this up. George Lucas might disagree, but the idea that a scruffy smuggling scoundrel would shoot the bounty hunter trying to take him prisoner is in character. Similarly, the idea that a would-be Jedi Knight would willingly plunge to his doom (without screaming) rather then turn to the dark side of the force is in character. George Lucas contradicts himself when he made those changes to the characters in later revisions of the movies.

Could Lucas clean up after himself? Change things some more so that they are in character? I suppose he could - it's his playground, and he can shit all over it if he likes. I still have my DVDs though.

Rowling doesn't have to resort to such things because she's not retconning anything - she's simply shining light on an otherwise unrevealed part of the characters.