Around the Common Room

I wish we could get away from the phrase “shut up.” It is fairly disrespectful and rude, so I would rather see nicer phrasing.

In my opinion, Jo has earned the right to talk about these books. They are, after all, her books. If she wants to talk about them, far be it from me to ask her to stop, even if I wanted to.

But I don’t want her to stop. I love all of the information. I constantly want to know more about lots of things. I am not so much interested in the details of who married whom and the futures of the individual characters. Instead, I am hungry for her perspective on what was happening during the series itself.

Travis,

Now that’s another fruitful and potentially divisive topic of discussion: to whom do the books belong?

I guess we’d have start by defining the word “belong”.

Pat, I don’t think Gilderoy was gay – I think he was too into Gilderoy to be much into anyone else, of either sex. But I’m definitely with you with regards to Slughorn. The way he “collected” bright young things. Most of whom were male, if I recall correctly.

As to what genre JKR will work in next, I see her as a natural mystery-detective fiction writer. All of her HP books contain one – and often more than one – mystery which the kids try to solve. And of course the whole epic is built on a riddle: the neither-can-live-while-the-other-survives riddle.

I suppose she could continue writing for children, but I don’t think that would be satisfactory for her or some of her readers – myself included. On the other hand, I don’t believe that the majority of her readers will ever accept her as anything other than a writer of fantasy for children.

As for Matthew’s question: have I moved from my original understanding by JKR’s revelations? Well, that depends.

With regards to King’s Cross being an “actual” limbo, no. I always thought King’s Cross was an objective rather than subjective experience. But strangely enough, had JKR stated the opposite, that it was “only” a near-death experience, it would not have changed how I felt about that chapter. And those of you who’ve seen my comments here know how strongly I feel about King’s Cross. I think the reason why her comments don’t change anything is because that chapter is so well written, reads so well, and works so well, that nothing anyone – including the author – can say can change its impact. At least not for me.

With regards to Dumbledore’s sexual orientation, well, yes, that does make a difference. I’ve said this before: I was always unconvinced by Dumbledore’s declaration of love at the end of OotP. I thought that either he or the author was guilty of some specious bs. And I never thought of Dumbledore’s sexuality – I never thought of Dumbledore or any of the Hogwart’s professors as sexual beings. But JKR’s revelation suddenly cast a new light on that declaration of love at the end of OotP. Now it made sense. And it also explained Dumbledore’s central conflict: between the dictates of duty and the dictates of his heart. And although many disagree, the clues were there, just not connected. And interestingly – although this remains conjectural – it connected Dumbledore’s past and his present, through the two people he loved, as an adolescent, and as an old man, and how he loved – as someone has said, neither wisely nor well.

So yes, that definitely makes a difference. The whole thing feels better thought out; Dumbledore feels like a real person, rather than a Gandalf-redux.

As for all the what happened afterwards stuff, it’s mostly immaterial. The only two points that interested me was that Harry did appreciate Snape’s sacrifice, and the final line “All was well.” which I confess sent shivers of apprehension down my back. And both of those are canon.

Travis,

Exactly my thoughts, too. DH makes Dumbledore more human even aside from his sexual orientation. And Jo’s interview on Pottercast does seem to indicate that Dumbledore’s sexuality wasn’t a big deal to her, i.e. it wasn’t really that important in the telling of the story.

Two more points: Dumbledore as Machiavelli’s Prince and Snape as a hero.

I had gradually come around to seeing Dumbledore as marvellously Machiavellian (starting with the recruitment of Slughorn in HBP) so I found JKR’s interpretation mildly validating. If she had said the opposite – that Dumbledore was a compassionate and forthright man who always sought the best for others – I would have been skeptical. But I don’t see how the woman who wrote the line:

“‘No,’ said Harry, ‘that bit didn’t work out’.”

could have ever seen Dumbledore as other than the puppet-master he revealed himself to be.

I must confess that I would be happier if JKR had more compassion for her Half Blood Prince. But I first learned about how divisive a character Snape can be in these self-same posts. I will never forget how the colour of his underwear was interpreted as an instance of his moral turpitude. So I am prepared to interpret the author’s contempt for her least-loved creation as a tribute to the genius of his conception. Plus, of course, she would not be the first artist who despised what greatly pleased others. Beethoven himself had little use for the Moonlight Sonata.

No, I knew you weren’t saying anything was sexual between Harry & Dumbledore. But the way things were phrased in that one post left room for doubt.

As for Dumbledore’s statement of love for Harry in OOTP, yes, it does come out of the blue somewhat. You can’t really see that Dumbledore has any more interest in Harry other than his struggle against LV. He may care for Harry. He may need Harry in the struggle against LV. But love kind of rings hollow, especially since even then Dumbledore doesn’t come clean with Harry.

Travis,

Have we had a discussion of Dumbledore as Machiavellian puppet-master? Whether that’s good or bad? I can’t remember. Any serious discussion of Dumbledore seems to have been sidetracked by the whole you know what question.

If we haven’t, I’ll start it off. Dumbledore’s machinations could be construed as good or at least as necessary in gradually giving Harry information over the years & letting him process it. It takes him all of OOTP to process through GOF & then it takes him time in HBP to process through Dumbledore’s revelations at the end of OOTP. And then in DH he takes awhile to process through Dumbledore & all his machinations. And in the end he takes the right path without knowing how it will turn out simply because he trusts Dumbledore’s guidance & plans.

I think it proper to say that Dumbledore is motivated by compassion & that he can also be a manipulator too. But the important thing is that he is repentant. Dumbledore, in a sense, starts off like Voldemort. A hatred of muggles perhaps for tearing his family apart. A desire for power & influence. I would think Voldemort thinks to a certain extent that what he is doing is for the greater good of the wizarding world.

But Dumbledore repents of that. One innocent death, his sister’s, is enough to clear his head of all his grandiose notions & prepare him to become the man to counter LV.

On a side note, does it seem as if the most powerful wizards are mostly half-bloods? Voldemort, Dumbledore, & Harry, whom I think we can consider the most powerful not on the basis of sheer power but on his character.

revgeorge,

I agree that Dumbledore is repentant and that his sister’s death does clear his head of grandiose notions of world domination. But do you think that changes his essential nature?

I need to stress that I am not critical of his essential nature. As I said before, trying times require people who can make difficult decisions and manipulate and deceive if necessary. While the word “Machiavellian” has acquired a lot of negative connotations, I don’t see it as a negative quality. Just something one has to be very careful with.

My point here is more a harkening back to the days when we saw Dumbledore as all that is wise and compassionate, loving and forgiving. Sort of like Father Christmas and Mother Theresa combined. He may have seemed like that, but that is not how he really is.

Well, it was sort of like seeing the priest with his pants down. I don’t know that anyone expected that Dumbledore would be that flawed. Machiavellian, yes. But selfish like teen-agers are selfish and irresponsible to the point that he takes part in a firefight which causes his sister’s death? I just didn’t expect him to be so – human.

I love it, of course. The boy who sits in his room and fantasizes about world domination is so much more real than the wise old Headmaster who fights evil from his study. Much less of an archetype, and thus much less of a stereotype.

But reading that quote makes me impatient to read the Scottish Book, so we can see just how the plot and characters evolved over the series and within each book.

Of course, the wise old headmaster is still appropriate for Dumbledore. It’s just that he got to be the wise old headmaster who sits in his study fighting evil by first being the young, foolish, sinful boy. He just didn’t spring out of the ground wise & old & dedicated to fighting evil, but we only saw that part of him for the first six novels, although it does break down a bit in OOTP, but we’re right back to it in HBP. So, DH Dumbledore comes as a bit of a shock.

Going back to another question, which genres JKR excels in:

As I said before, I think she’s a natural for detective-mystery stories. She’d be right at home with the queens of mystery : Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers and Ngaio Marsh. Not so much Patricia Wentworth, who always throws in a love story.

I don’t see JKR as a writer of romance fiction. With JKR, the romance always takes second place -or even further back – to the main story. For example, when Harry is about to die, or back from being dead, bidding farewell or an “I’m back” to Ginny are not his top priorities. His mission is most important, followed by his friends. But beyond this, JKR just doesn’t write like a romance writer. There is no dwelling on thoughts about the loved one, no trying to guess what she/he wants, no does she / doesn’t she love me’s, no anguish, no self-torment. In fact, one of the reasons why Harry dumps Cho is because she is so into that. Life is just too short for that kind of stuff. Romance there is, but it’s fairly circumscribed, and functional: find your mate, and get on with life. That is why Ginny is such a good match for him: she knows what she wants, they get together, end of story. In many ways, JKR writes about love like a male author.

I think she’d be pretty good with adventure stories as well, both children’s (like Arthur Ransome) and adults’, especially with some mystery thrown in (Alistair MacLean, Hammond Innes, Jack Higgins).

But overall, I think that JKR will develop her own genre. Her fantasy books were not quite like any other fantasy stories, and her detective-mystery stories or whatever else she writes next will be uniquely her own. Which doesn’t mean that they will be entirely original: JKR borrows from many sources. However, she doesn’t merely borrow. She seems to have a gift for integrating what she’s borrowed into a sense of time and place which reflects the main elements of her culture – while seeming radically different from that culture. You’ll have to forgive me if this sounds disjointed; it’s a thought I’m trying to articulate for myself, how JKR works like an alchemist: taking this, that and the other thing, and turning them into gold.

revgeorge, give Order another watch, and pay attention to every scene where Harry’s crush on Cho is mentioned or emphasized – only look for Ginny’s face and watch her reaction. Some really good subtle work there by Yates to set himself up for Half-Blood Prince’s romantic developments.

Matthew,

I imagine it would be very hard to predict how a 10 year old child actor will turn out in seven or eight years’ time. When they were first casting the part, one of the candidates was Haley Joel Osment, who was the highest profile child actor of the time. I was really disappointed – lack of a British accent notwithstanding – that they didn’t go with him. But looking at how he evolved, it was probably a wise decision. As a child, Osment was preternaturally grave and mature. And extremely cute. As an adolescent he just seemed inconsistent and odd – and not so cute. More recently, he’s been doing voice acting.

Anyways, my point is, no matter whom they picked, it would be something of a crap shoot. I actually think that Radcliffe was fine for the first three or four films. It’s as he gets older that we begin to see hints and more of the person he is developing into which isn’t entirely consistent with Harry Potter. They got three or four good movies out of him. I don’t think they could have done better.