Rowling and fan ships [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

SiuiS

2014-02-03, 12:48 PM

Evidently Rowling has had second thoughts (http://www.hypable.com/2014/02/01/jk-rowling-ron-hermione-relationship-regret-interview/) about Ron and Hermione winding up together. She's considering HarryxHermione would have been a better match. But I suppose it's too late to retcon it now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Would have been terrible. The value of the relationship is that it wasn't big-standard Hero Gets Girl.

I remember wanting Harry to end up with Ginny from her first crush on him. Harry/Hermione was entirely too cliché from the beginning.

People don't think Ron could keep Hermione happy over the long run? Maybe not. I'm sure even wizards get divorced sometimes.

But Ron displayed noble qualities throughout the books that Hermione clearly valued. Plus he had just enough 'goofy oaf' about him to not become predictable over the years.

J.K. Rowling -- if you're reading this -- I think you made the right choice. Additional Kudos on showing Draco as being a better person than his family tried to make him become.

Word.

druid91

2014-02-03, 12:51 PM

Psyren

2014-02-03, 12:55 PM

Not much to discuss here. Some folks are getting upset over this revelation, saying she's doing a disservice to the "Rons of the world" and that the "main protagonist getting the female lead is overdone."

Honestly, I could see her end up with either of them. Ron is sweet, certainly, but Harry is the achiever between the two and Hermione values both qualities.

Having said that, I do like Harry ending up with Ginny simply because it made him a full member of the Weasley family, the only true family he's ever had growing up. So while Ginny was basically a brick as far as personality goes, introducing her did allow for everyone to get their happy ending.

druid91

2014-02-03, 01:03 PM

Psyren

2014-02-03, 01:06 PM

True, Sirius was family - though he wasn't really there for Harry the way the Weasleys were, imo. So I consider them to be more family than he was, no matter what the paperwork says.

The Glyphstone

2014-02-03, 01:08 PM

Being locked up in Evil Hell Prison tends to do that. But from a narrative standpoint, you're right.

Personally, I want to know what happened to Dudley Dursley After The End; was his outburst of humanity during his last on-text scene the start of a change, or just a one-off incident triggered by stress and possible imminent death?

Fragenstein

2014-02-03, 01:11 PM

Some folks are getting upset over this revelation, saying she's doing a disservice to the "Rons of the world"...

Rons of the world...

The entire Weasley family seems a bit odd, if you ask me. Capable of far more depth than they display. I don't know how much of this is canon, but it seems like they end up in Gryffindor a little more often than they should.

None of them are particularly 'heroic' in the obvious, yet I get the feeling that people like Dumbledore and other leaders of the sane wizarding world have always depended on them to fight against the dark forces. Not quite like they're a secret weapon, but just a lineage that carries heroism in a carpetbag rather than a cape.

Hufflepuff uses a badger as a mascot. You'd think they'd be the ones who step out of the shadows of mediocrity and help save the world with an unexpected ferocity.

Maybe they are, and maybe the Weasleys are just a little more than that.

Certainly one thing is true; Ginny wanted to end up with Harry, and she worked to make that happen -- particularly through her role in the Army. I could see her mother being the same strong-willed, make-it-so type of person.

Ginny may have been weak in the movies, but I thought she developed well in the novels.

pendell

2014-02-03, 01:13 PM

I could have sworn that at the aftermath at the end of book 7 Dudley and Harry remained friends in later life, Dudley, like Draco, having been able to grow up a bit better than his terrible parenting. As discussed (http://www.beyondhogwarts.com/harry-potter/comments/jk-rowling-goes-beyond-the-epilogue.html?pg=28).

Posted today by J.K. Rowling on her official web site]

Harry and Dudley: Future Hope?

A couple of people have told me that they hoped to see Dudley at King’s Cross in the Epilogue, accompanying a wizarding child. I must admit that it did occur to me to do that very thing, but a short period of reflection convinced me that any latent wizarding genes would never survive contact with Uncle Vernon’s DNA, so I didn’t do it.

However, I know that after Dudley’s brave attempt at reconciliation at the start of Deathly Hallows, the two cousins would have remained on ‘Christmas Card’ terms for the rest of their lives, and that Harry would have taken his family to visit Dudley’s when they were in the neighbourhood (occasions dreaded by James, Albus and Lily).

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on December 7, 2007 1:32 PM

I prefer Ron and Hermione precisely because IME the relationships that last the longest are those when one member is laid back while the other is ambitious -- they complement each other. It works less well when both are the heroic achieving types that Harry and Hermione both were.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Metahuman1

2014-02-03, 01:14 PM

Ginny may have been weak in the movies, but I thought she developed well in the novels.

The movies sorta lost there way after the second one. And yes, in the books she's far more likeable.

Velaryon

2014-02-03, 01:22 PM

Perhaps it's unusual to feel this way, but I never saw the need for an official epilogue to the story anyway. For me the story is complete as soon as Voldemort is defeated and the immediate consequences of that are explored. I did not and do not feel any need to know who married whom years later, or whether their children ended up in Gryffindor or Ravenclaw or whatever.

I think it's great that Rowling had the entire courses of her characters' lives figured out because it shows how real those characters became to her, but I don't think all of those details needed to be included, at least not for my sake.

On the other hand, as popular as the series was, I'm sure she'd have been asked these questions a billion times if she hadn't included that epilogue, so I can understand why it's there. It's just unnecessary for me personally.

Hunter Noventa

2014-02-03, 01:25 PM

Ginny bugs me both because it feels like she didn't get enough development, but she also falls square into the "First Girl Wins" trope. Ginny was technically the first girl harry met in the Wizarding World, because she was there with the Weasleys on the platform before he got on the train to meet Hermione.

Also, constant arguments is no basis for a stable relationship, I just can't see Ron and Hermione working out at all.

Grey Watcher

2014-02-03, 01:46 PM

The movies sorta lost there way after the second one. And yes, in the books she's far more likeable.

Likeable, yes, but I don't think she's all that much more developed. I mean, despite having read the books, I really don't feel like I have much of an idea of who she is.

I'm kind of inclined to agree with a comment I read on another site on this story. She should've left out the epilogue and let us fans just speculate about which characters married their high wizarding school sweethearts and which ones eventually moved on.

druid91

2014-02-03, 01:50 PM

The movies sorta lost there way after the second one. And yes, in the books she's far more likeable.

Here's the thing, in the books she's essentially the same old brick. Her entire defining feature was "Likes harry, is a weasley."

I find myself in a really bizarre place with the harry potter books in that all my favorite characters are side-characters or villains. Because you have interesting characters like Neville Longbottom, Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Luna Lovegood, and Severus Snape... alongside well...Ron, Ginny, and Harry.

Piggy Knowles

2014-02-03, 01:51 PM

Fragenstein

2014-02-03, 01:51 PM

hamishspence

2014-02-03, 01:59 PM

Here's the thing, in the books she's essentially the same old brick. Her entire defining feature was "Likes harry, is a weasley."

She's also, like Ron, someone who's grown up in the shadow of the rest of her siblings' achievements- and yet doesn't let this stop her.

Rest of the family doesn't let her play Quidditch with them? She pinches their brooms in secret and trains herself.

Result- she catches the Snitch in every school game she plays.

She and Luna are also the only 4th years to accompany Harry & co. to the Department of Mysteries in book 5.

Metahuman1

2014-02-03, 02:00 PM

She also spends much of the first four books being a little girl and then a young teenager and figuring herself out while the others are dealing with immanent danger/death. And what she ultimately figures out is she's more a grab bull by horns type, which we see when she's getting into the Quiddich (I'm 99.9% certain I spelled that wrong but you know what I mean.) team and the Army.

And I'd argue that she might have been the first girl he met, but the first real female friend he made was Hermione, and his first actual crush was Cho. (Again, almost certain I got her name wrong.)

As for getting with a school mate, HP is partially a British boarding school story, with, admittedly, a lot of other stuff in there, and as far as I know, that's a staple of that style of story. Though, I'm not from Britain so my knowledge of the matter should be taken with a serious does of salt.

pendell

2014-02-03, 02:01 PM

I didn't view the epilogue as relationship closure, but rather an introduction to Albus Severus Potter. I would honestly LOVE to see him be put into Slytherin, deal with the angst and antagonism of that, only to find out the house has more to offer than just villains and cowards

They do? The Slytherin house I remember was composed of low-rent creeps like Crab, Goyle, and Pansy Parkinson. The one Slytherin professor she wrote in in book 6 to show that Slytherin had redeeming qualities -- Professor Slughorn -- was a social climber and was willing to lie to save his own neck, even if that meant denying Dumbledore crucial information about Voldemort's plans.

Given the complete lack of any redeeming characters Rowling wrote in over the course of the books for that house, it's a bit surprising that Slytherin dorms weren't relocated to Azkaban. Save a lot of time.

... and yes, that means I think she could have written in some more sympathetic Slytherins.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

hamishspence

2014-02-03, 02:05 PM

SmartAlec

2014-02-03, 02:15 PM

What's wrong with Ron, anyway? Wasn't he an excellent chess-player in the first book? Where'd all those smarts go?

Fragenstein

2014-02-03, 02:19 PM

They do? The Slytherin house I remember was composed of low-rent creeps like Crab, Goyle, and Pansy Parkinson. The one Slytherin professor she wrote in in book 6 to show that Slytherin had redeeming qualities -- Professor Slughorn -- was a social climber and was willing to lie to save his own neck, even if that meant denying Dumbledore crucial information about Voldemort's plans.

Given the complete lack of any redeeming characters Rowling wrote in over the course of the books for that house, it's a bit surprising that Slytherin dorms weren't relocated to Azkaban. Save a lot of time.

... and yes, that means I think she could have written in some more sympathetic Slytherins.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Salazar Slytherin himself was considered worthy of being a quarter-founder of Hogwarts itself, which ended up a very strong school with a rich tradition. Oh, sure, he may have constructed the odd Chamber of Secrets with the intent of wiping out lesser blood, but hey... he still got some respect.

Rowling didn't really delve very deeply at all into the rest of the houses. What we saw pretty much was under the thumb of Draco, who was being bossed around by his father, who spent most of his life in fear of Voldemort.

It was a bad time for Slytherin house. And, yes, "There weren't a wizard that went bad what didn't come out of Slytherin...", but would they have been so reprehensible if history's greatest monsters weren't hiding under their beds?

The Sorting Hat didn't see them as a bad thing. Dumbledore didn't see them as a bad thing. Certainly, what should have been the worst of their lot (Draco), had qualities decent enough for Dumbledore to sacrifice himself to save.

Well. He was dying anyway from a curse. But he still could have taken a few Deatheaters out before dying if he'd really been trying.

But, like I said, "...find out the house has more to offer than just villains and cowards... with some strong leadership would have made a nice storyline."

Meaning we could have seen a corrupt and chaotic Slytherin house be presented with a challenge that ASP leads them through as he brings back the best that they can be in the process. Throw off the influences of the Voldemort/Malfoy connection and the bitterness of Snape, show what a house that PROPERLY circumvents the rules can do when they're not terrified a man-eating werewolf is about to crash through their waterfall.

Cheating in Gryffindor. For shame.

Or maybe I'm juts prejudiced because I still think Slytherin would throw the best parties... Sometimes that colors my judgment.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 02:24 PM

Personally, I want to know what happened to Dudley Dursley After The End; was his outburst of humanity during his last on-text scene the start of a change, or just a one-off incident triggered by stress and possible imminent death?

Word of God is that they are civil and their families occasionally meet (e.g. Thanksgiving.) Relations between the two are pretty strained but not hostile. Rowling likened them to those in-laws or uncles who never quite get along.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-02-03, 02:30 PM

Ron could've been better. My sister has a lot of posters in her room, and one of them is of movie Ron in his flannel jacket. And I think he looks badass. But while Nevile went from total failure to pretty good at combat and great at herbology, Ron went from goofy and showing quite a bit of talent (chess, and being able to cast the levitate spell despite his terrible wand) to about average. He just became "a Weasley, and the guy Hermione's dating" in the later books.

I don't particularly pay attention to the fact that all Weasleys got in Gryffindor because the houses were set up in a kind of interesting way and then Rowling butchered it.

druid91

2014-02-03, 02:33 PM

She's also, like Ron, someone who's grown up in the shadow of the rest of her siblings' achievements- and yet doesn't let this stop her.

Rest of the family doesn't let her play Quidditch with them? She pinches their brooms in secret and trains herself.

Result- she catches the Snitch in every school game she plays.

She and Luna are also the only 4th years to accompany Harry & co. to the Department of Mysteries in book 5.

Except that was Ron's personal fear. None of the others show it at all, not Percy, not the Twins, and not Ginny.

Secondly, I was under the impression that she did get to play quidditch with them. Perhaps just because it's been a while since I read the books.

And? That doesn't change that Ginny was just there as a competent mostly-blank slate. It could have been Justin Finch-Fletchley or Collin Creevey and the end result would be mostly the same.

Legato Endless

2014-02-03, 03:07 PM

Honestly I'm not sure why Rowling is saying this at all. The books are already out, you're only going to stir up resentment by talking about what might have been.

I find myself in a really bizarre place with the harry potter books in that all my favorite characters are side-characters or villains. Because you have interesting characters like Neville Longbottom, Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Luna Lovegood, and Severus Snape... alongside well...Ron, Ginny, and Harry.

That's not bizarre at all. A lot of people get tired with the highly conventional protagonists that run around in fiction and focus on the more interesting ensemble around them. You'd easily get dozens if not hundreds of responses if you created a thread on this.

Hufflepuff uses a badger as a mascot. You'd think they'd be the ones who step out of the shadows of mediocrity and help save the world with an unexpected ferocity.

Maybe they are, and maybe the Weasleys are just a little more than that.

Well of course. The Weasley's are main characters, so they end up in House Protagonist. It would be awful for fans to put them in House Cannon Fodder. :smalltongue:

What's wrong with Ron, anyway? Wasn't he an excellent chess-player in the first book? Where'd all those smarts go?

In fairness, being very good at chess may suggest several things like solid spatial reasoning, it doesn't automatically equate to overall intelligence despite the stereotype.

And I'd argue that she might have been the first girl he met, but the first real female friend he made was Hermione, and his first actual crush was Cho. (Again, almost certain I got her name wrong.)

True, but simply being introduced earlier is enough to qualify for first girl wins. Which is absurd. Not Harry and Ginny, but that first girls wins is an established trope at all confuses me. Why am I expected to automatically like more the first person I'm introduced to?

huttj509

2014-02-03, 03:20 PM

True, but simply being introduced earlier is enough to qualify for first girl wins. Which is absurd. Not Harry and Ginny, but that first girls wins is an established trope at all confuses me. Why am I expected to automatically like more the first person I'm introduced to?

You're not, because you're not a character in a book/movie/song.

You want the love interest to get a lot of screen time so the audience can get a chance to root for her, so you introduce her early.

FirebirdFlying

2014-02-03, 03:28 PM

Psyren

2014-02-03, 03:28 PM

Legato Endless

2014-02-03, 03:32 PM

You're not, because you're not a character in a book/movie/song.

You want the love interest to get a lot of screen time so the audience can get a chance to root for her, so you introduce her early.

Sorry, the meaning was a bit nebulous. I meant myself as audience member. Not in real life. And yes, I get introduction being early, especially in a short time frame like a film. I'm more confused by this when it appears in longer narrative formats, and where all of the candidates are introduced relatively quickly.

Androgeus

2014-02-03, 03:32 PM

Word of God is that they are civil and their families occasionally meet (e.g. Thanksgiving.)

They must be quite friendly if they are getting together for a holiday that doesn't exist in the UK :smalltongue:

Legato Endless

2014-02-03, 03:34 PM

They must be quite friendly if they are getting together for a holiday that doesn't exist in the UK :smalltongue:

They emigrated from the States? That explains so much.

Fragenstein

2014-02-03, 03:46 PM

They emigrated from the States? That explains so much.

Well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it.

hamishspence

2014-02-03, 03:50 PM

Secondly, I was under the impression that she did get to play quidditch with them. Perhaps just because it's been a while since I read the books.

After Umbridge has suspended Fred, George & Harry from the team, they discuss their replacements - Fred & George are somewhat underwhelmed with their replacements as Beaters, but one says:

"Actually, Ginny's not bad. Dunno had she got so good, seeing we never let her play with us."

And Hermione points out that

"she's been breaking into your broom shed ever since she was seven to take the brooms to practice with"

and, somewhat impressed, a twin says:

"Oh. Well, that explains it."

At least, that's what I remember.

Coidzor

2014-02-03, 03:53 PM

Psyren

2014-02-03, 03:57 PM

I mean, at first it was kind of interesting how she'd sound off on these sort of things as Word of God. By now it's just sort of... "You do realize it's over, right? The bar's closed and locked up and the bartender has been seen in three days."

Eh, I was never a big fan of Death of the Author. Even if the majority ultimately disagree with her opinion it's still valuable to know.

Coidzor

2014-02-03, 04:00 PM

Eh, I was never a big fan of Death of the Author. Even if the majority ultimately disagree with her opinion it's still valuable to know.

Frankly it's less that and more the fact that she's still going on about it after years. Now if we're talking about how she wussed out and didn't actually make Dumbledore gay in the book series but still wanted the feather in her cap of having a gay character (that is to say, have her cake and eat it too), well, that's less death of the author(though there is some of that) and more her commoditization of sexual minorities without actually taking any real risk.

Dienekes

2014-02-03, 04:03 PM

Ehh, who the characters end up rowling in the hay with is the least interesting part of the story anyway. Honestly, I don't care which boy Hermione picks.

I will say, after enjoying Ron for the first couple of books. I was really hoping he'd come prove himself as a badass, or something. But he never really does. He ends up getting overshadowed by Neville of all people.

If any of you are aware of the Very Potter Musicals, I think Sirius said it best:
"And to Ron, the guy who's always helping out... Thanks for helping out."
(which is ironic, since Ron is actually pretty active in the plays, taking charge after Harry's out and coming up with the plan to save him, but this is not entirely relevant).

Psyren

2014-02-03, 04:07 PM

Frankly it's less that and more the fact that she's still going on about it after years. Now if we're talking about how she wussed out and didn't actually make Dumbledore gay in the book series but still wanted the feather in her cap of having a gay character (that is to say, have her cake and eat it too), well, that's less death of the author(though there is some of that) and more her commoditization of sexual minorities without actually taking any real risk.

That's not fair - there's plenty in the books to support Dumbledore being gay. It's not like she had him go on about how straight he was (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HaveIMentionedIAmHeterosexualToday) and then about-face in the interviews. (Also, what risk - the fundies were burning her books already just for the magic so it's not like she was winning them over.)

As for it being years later, there is new HP stuff in the pipeline (http://www.hypable.com/2013/09/12/new-harry-potter-movies-fantastic-beasts-jk-rowling/) so of course she's going to keep talking about the series/'verse.

rowling in the hay with

I see what you did there :smalltongue:

Eldariel

2014-02-03, 06:25 PM

IMHO the biggest crime in the series is that Harry lives. He should die for real; to complete the circle or whatever. It would be the natural, peaceful conclusion to his tortured existence and the most logical conclusion to the "tie" between Voldy and Harry.

Psyren

2014-02-03, 06:28 PM

He did die - and the tie between them died then too. So, only natural that the cycle would be broken at that point, and he could go on living while Voldy went moldy.

The Glyphstone

2014-02-03, 06:34 PM

He did die - and the tie between them died then too. So, only natural that the cycle would be broken at that point, and he could go on living while Voldy went moldy.

Yeah, but happy endings for anyone are so outdated and 90's. The current rage is GoT-style endless arbitrary misery and suffering. Aka Realism.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-03, 06:43 PM

I like Ron/Herminone for pretty much the same reasons SiuiS does.

I find it odd for JKR to say that Ron/Hermione was wish-fulfillment, since Harry and Herminone is still wish-fulfillment, but just in the other direction and more cliche in most media in any case. (And with Ginny, Rowling did at least try to give her some room to have her own adventures, seperate from Harry, which I felt showed that her world didn't revolve around him. I also sort of liked Cho, come to that.)

If you wanted to break from traditional wish-fufillment tropes as the basis for changing the canon pairing, then Harry should not have married EITHER Ginny, Herminone, Cho or Luna, but someone else he met or developed a relationship with a few years later, someone who wasn't a major character in the books AT ALL.

While I have no particular objections to it, I'm still a bit miffed they went with Neville/Luna in the movies (because, let's be brutally they were the only two major characters not paired up). I found the canon that they both met their parents later on (or developed it later on) to be more realistic. Things should not ever be too neat.

That said, I don't have any particular ire against Harry and Hermione, except when it comes at Ron's expense, i.e. the bashing of his character1 (which it so often does in fanfiction. Ron is seemingly nearly hated as much as Dumbledore and he's often shown as being nearly more evil than Voldemort...)

Personally, though, I think the currently existing canon is probably the better result overall (but I actually didn't hate the epilogue, like so many other people did, which probably just shows how evil I really am).

Yeah, but happy endings for anyone are so outdated and 90's. The current rage is GoT-style endless arbitrary misery and suffering. Aka Realism.

Oh, how I dearly wish I could take that rage outside the back and give it a beating to death so bloody and viceral that even it will itself be briefly begging that perhaps it's going a bit far, before I dismbowled its soul and nailed it to the sky to scream forever in infinite agony...

1Usually for the henious crime of Acting Like A Typical Teenage Boy and reacting to things in a manner a normal child/teenager of his age (i.e. one who isn't uncommonly bright or introspective).

Eldariel

2014-02-03, 06:58 PM

He did die - and the tie between them died then too. So, only natural that the cycle would be broken at that point, and he could go on living while Voldy went moldy.

Aye, he died, but I did say "die for real"; when you die for real, you don't come back, Resurrection Stone or not. But see, the way I'd have preferred it was for him to stay dead. The way I view it he was cursed ever since that day; I think a more fulfilling end would be that Harry sacrifice himself to buy the rest a relatively happy end.

Qwertystop

2014-02-03, 07:13 PM

"she's been breaking into your broom shed ever since she was seven to take the brooms to practice with"

and, somewhat impressed, a twin says:

"Oh. Well, that explains it."

"... shed since the age of six, and taking each of your brooms out in turn when you weren't looking."

and

"...that'd explain it."

(I had the audiocasettes until my tape deck broke and used to play a side every night so I wasn't just lying there waiting to be tired. Some lines stick. Sorry.)

More on-topic: I never really felt Harry with Hermione was presented as an option, honestly. I mean, first few books everyone's prepubescent so nobody's thinking about it, but when the topic of romance does start coming up (around book 4), it's always Ron putting his foot in his mouth with Hermione, and Harry bumbling through a relationship with Cho, until both get sorted out in book 6 (with Harry and Ginny) and 7 (Ron and Hermione). If Rowling had gone the other way, she'd have to have made the decision before publishing 6 to not mess that up (maybe even before 5, I don't remember much of what went on between Ron and Hermione there).

Math_Mage

2014-02-03, 07:28 PM

Who Hermione goes out with is not on the top 20 of regrettable things in the series, even if one agrees it's regrettable in the first place, which I don't.

Janus

2014-02-03, 07:33 PM

Starbuck_II

2014-02-03, 07:52 PM

Here's the thing, in the books she's essentially the same old brick. Her entire defining feature was "Likes harry, is a weasley."

I find myself in a really bizarre place with the harry potter books in that all my favorite characters are side-characters or villains. Because you have interesting characters like Neville Longbottom, Sirius Black, Regulus Black, Luna Lovegood, and Severus Snape... alongside well...Ron, Ginny, and Harry.

And this is why Luna and Harry should be. Hannah Abbot and Neville are the real deal though as well. Well Bill/Fleur but then they are both cool.

wybrand

2014-02-03, 08:12 PM

Psyren

2014-02-03, 08:38 PM

Aye, he died, but I did say "die for real"; when you die for real, you don't come back, Resurrection Stone or not. But see, the way I'd have preferred it was for him to stay dead. The way I view it he was cursed ever since that day; I think a more fulfilling end would be that Harry sacrifice himself to buy the rest a relatively happy end.

And again I say, yeah he was cursed, and he broke it. There's a potentially-forum-rules-unfriendly term that starts with "mess" that you're supposed to be thinking of when you consider Harry, and if you're not or you take issue with that then you rather missed the point of Rowling's work.

Yeah, but happy endings for anyone are so outdated and 90's. The current rage is GoT-style endless arbitrary misery and suffering. Aka Realism.

Sure seems that way...

SmartAlec

2014-02-03, 08:46 PM

If you wanted to break from traditional wish-fufillment tropes as the basis for changing the canon pairing, then Harry should not have married EITHER Ginny, Herminone, Cho or Luna, but someone else he met or developed a relationship with a few years later, someone who wasn't a major character in the books AT ALL.

Now that you mention it, it is a little odd and maybe somewhat creepy that all people in the wizarding world seem to end up marrying someone they were involved with at school, or remain single. The only exception I can think of in the books is the 'odd couple', Remus and Tonks, and that doesn't last long.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-03, 08:51 PM

Now that you mention it, it is a little odd and maybe somewhat creepy that all people in the wizarding world seem to end up marrying someone they were involved with at school, or remain single. The only exception I can think of in the books is the 'odd couple', Remus and Tonks, and that doesn't last long.

It does go a fairly long way to explain the insularity of the wizarding world, of course. The dating pool may, of course, just not be very big in those circumstances, given that wizards rarely interact with muggles; wizard culture tends to even pull muggleborns into it, rather than being more geninunely hybridised.

Legato Endless

2014-02-03, 09:47 PM

Honestly, I never got caught up in Harry Potter shipping. I thought the romance in the books was the weakest aspect, and I was surprised when I heard there were rabid Harry/Ginny shippers (frankly, I didn't see it until book 5 or 6 when it was made blatant). I thought the best romance was Bill/Fleur, and that's because it was mostly "off-screen."

As for Ron/Hermione, I have to agree with my sister- Ron has too much of an inferiority complex to be with such an intelligent person as Hermione.

The first rule of shipping is that people will do it regardless of logic, sense, plausibility or decency.

You don't need to do a good execution to get people to be passionate about it. They will fill in or ignore anything to make it work for them.

Janus

2014-02-03, 09:51 PM

Razanir

2014-02-03, 09:52 PM

Nope. We all know the perfect Harry ship is HarryxLuna.

Kitten Champion

2014-02-03, 11:44 PM

I don't know, I've always thought Harry should end up with someone from Hufflepuff House.

Ummm... Hannah Abbott!

Yeah, her.

Dienekes

2014-02-04, 12:04 AM

Nope. We all know the perfect Harry ship is HarryxLuna.

So, just going to say this. Luna was a great character, one of my favorites. But that whole, drawing pictures of the gang in her room surrounded by a chain of the word "friend" over and over again is some creepy ****. No Harry, don't date crazy.

Also, I thought Ginny in the books had character, not as interesting as Luna or as developed as the main three. But a consistent, believable personality of a growing confident girl. But honestly it's been years since I read those books, so maybe I'm just filling in the details with my imagination.

-Sentinel-

2014-02-04, 12:30 AM

Yup, LunaxHarry is where it's at. His relationship with Hermoine is more platonic, the older sister he never had, while the one with Ginny is just a bit of awkward forced teenage love with someone that's barely even a character that has no chance of surviving longer than a year. Luna on the other hand is loyal, but not worshipping, honest, but not nagging, badass, but knows more than one curse.
Yes, yes, agreed. :smallbiggrin: In addition to being all-around awesome, Luna is a perfect dark-horse option for a pairing with the lead, but without coming out of left field. (Was it in the sixth book that Harry went on sort of a not-serious date with her? And she was so damn happy about it. Too bad their relationship didn't grow from there.)

ryuplaneswalker

2014-02-04, 01:21 AM

banthesun

2014-02-04, 01:29 AM

It always seemed to me like the whole Hermione/Ron relationship only existed because they were both main characters (and having Harry/Hermione would have made Ron even more irrelevant). Hermione can meet some foreign wizard later in life while she's off doing research or something. Ron can get a Hufflepuff or something.

As for Luna, I'm a bit uncomfortable shipping her with anyone (or at least anyone who doesn't believe all the crazy stuff she says). I mean, sure she's pretty high up the badass ranking, but what that girl really needs is some good platonic friends (which is all she seems to want, anyway. She's happy to go to the dance because Harry invited her "as a friend", and the crazy in her house says "friends", rather than being posters with smooch-marks or something).

Moak

2014-02-04, 01:50 AM

IMHO:
-Bill&Fleur good couple (after all, the scene in which Fleur goes nuts and says "I'm beautiful enough for both" throwing away Ron's mother moronic prejudice against a beautiful girl that has the fault of... beeing beautiful?...well, is one of my favourite part of the books)
-Harry&Luna would have been interesting. Sure, it couldn't go on for long (Harry is TOO practical. He can live with the fact that Luna is crazy, but in short time spans. I can't see a man like him to live a life looking out for something invisible that is a menace...after living all his life like this since ever)
- In the books, I find Ginny likeable. She work a lot on her problems with their brother that want her to do what they want (we must approve who you end out with) and she show guts, when she take Harry in Order of the Phoenix, and kick his ass about stopping to mope the floor. She is the girl with simple interest that want to go on with her life like she want. Beeing it kicking some Umbridge, Quidditching when noone looks, working on her social life... she goes on by herself. The only moment in which I would have KILLED Harry in the story is when, after Dumbledore death, he leaves her because "if you are my girlfriend and someone discover it you'll be in danger!" Yes... because surely Voldemort haden't seen all your feelings looking trough you for a year and an half.. sic.
- Tonks&Lupin was good, and... made me sad their pointless death. Couldn't die someone else? Why BOTH of'em?
- Hermione&Harry got no sense for me. Even Harry&Draco has more base, being antagonist going back trough fight to understand each other. Harry was always completly disinteressed in Hermione...even when she was in her top-notch "I am beautiful" when going to dance with Krum..

hamishspence

2014-02-04, 06:34 AM

"... shed since the age of six, and taking each of your brooms out in turn when you weren't looking."

and

"...that'd explain it."

Good point. Still, I came close.

Avilan the Grey

2014-02-04, 07:06 AM

I like the Ron / Hermione pairing. I never understood the Harry / Ginny one.

I shipped these:

Harry / Luna
Harry / Hermione
Harry / Fleur

Ginny wasn't even on the map for me.

Piggy Knowles

2014-02-04, 07:56 AM

*snip*

Tonks/Lupin and Molly/Arthur were basically the only two pairings I really liked in the series.

Dienekes

2014-02-04, 08:19 AM

Tonks/Lupin and Molly/Arthur were basically the only two pairings I really liked in the series.

What? But the most beautiful relationship of all was easily Aberforth/Goats.

Legato Endless

2014-02-04, 09:01 AM

Ron can get a Hufflepuff or something.

Hey now. At the very least Ron can rise above the bumbling badger of mediocrity.

Philistine

2014-02-04, 09:26 AM

The first rule of shipping is that people will do it regardless of logic, sense, plausibility or decency.

You don't need to do a good execution to get people to be passionate about it. They will fill in or ignore anything to make it work for them.

That....
...yeah, you're right. I've said myself that "sometimes, shipping knows no canon."

*goes back to shipping Street Fighter's Guile and Cammy*

I sometimes wonder what some of these people are fans of, exactly, when they not only make up stuff that's not even hinted at in the text but actively contradict things that the text makes explicitly clear.

Dienekes

2014-02-04, 10:19 AM

I sometimes wonder what some of these people are fans of, exactly, when they not only make up stuff that's not even hinted at in the text but actively contradict things that the text makes explicitly clear.

I have a theory. It's a bit controversial, but I think it successfully explains the phenomenon.

Shippers are crazy. Approach with caution.

Eldariel

2014-02-04, 10:23 AM

And again I say, yeah he was cursed, and he broke it. There's a potentially-forum-rules-unfriendly term that starts with "mess" that you're supposed to be thinking of when you consider Harry, and if you're not or you take issue with that then you rather missed the point of Rowling's work.

I rather don't think an exact allegory is necessary to that end though. Hell, the reason Harry won isn't because of divine providence or being born stronger or because destiny says so (which would be a messianic story), but simply because Voldy was using a wand that, unknowingly to him, belonged to Harry. Harry effectively acts a guile hero in the last few books, winning a close battle not because of power but because of making the right moves.

Therefore, I don't see why Harry couldn't be a martyr instead of a deliverer; I don't see how that makes for an as good a story, and the current version has almost certainly been told more times too. I rather expected that'd be how it ends (as, I'm certain, most did) but I can't but feel a tad disappointed that the dark lord himself died so...cheap.

Traab

2014-02-04, 12:24 PM

I remember wanting Harry to end up with Ginny from her first crush on him. Harry/Hermione was entirely too cliché from the beginning.

People don't think Ron could keep Hermione happy over the long run? Maybe not. I'm sure even wizards get divorced sometimes.

But Ron displayed noble qualities throughout the books that Hermione clearly valued. Plus he had just enough 'goofy oaf' about him to not become predictable over the years.

J.K. Rowling -- if you're reading this -- I think you made the right choice. Additional Kudos on showing Draco as being a better person than his family tried to make him become.

Ron had his good side, but he was also a total ASS at least as often. He was constantly thoughtlessly mean and/or rude to her, never thought first before speaking, and aside from harry they had nothing in common other than not liking voldemort much. She was a bookworm study machine who disliked quidditch, he was a lazy wannabe jock that thought reading for fun was something on the level of luna lovegood strange and wanted nothing more than to play quidditch.

He also showed a rather marked tendency to cut and run when the going got tough. He turned on harry 4th year, abandoned them both 7th year, and generally didnt come back until things got a bit better. In third year he was quite willing to drop hermione, who had been their friend for years, risked her life along side them, over a broom and an already half dead rat.

warty goblin

2014-02-04, 12:32 PM

Psyren

2014-02-04, 01:41 PM

This screams to me of "I can't write another series so to stay relevant i will cause random things to get my cash cow back into the news"

that is what the dumbledore "reveal" was, it was pandering in the worst way and now that she has been out of the news again she has to stir up interest and get them checks.

Okay, first off - the Dumbledore reveal wasn't "pandering." It was a very, very positive thing, particularly for the thousands upon thousands of LGBT youth that read the books.

Second, you're acting like she snapped awake one day, saw how empty her front lawn was, and grabbed the nearest megaphone to yell "I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

Because that's not what happened. Wonderland/Emma Watson went to interview her. They asked her the question. And she said what was on her mind.

Whether you agree or disagree with her point of view, the bottom line is that they are her characters and she has the right to speak her mind.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-04, 01:49 PM

Ron had his good side, but he was also a total ASS at least as often. He was constantly thoughtlessly mean and/or rude to her, never thought first before speaking, and aside from harry they had nothing in common other than not liking voldemort much. She was a bookworm study machine who disliked quidditch, he was a lazy wannabe jock that thought reading for fun was something on the level of luna lovegood strange and wanted nothing more than to play quidditch.

He also showed a rather marked tendency to cut and run when the going got tough. He turned on harry 4th year, abandoned them both 7th year, and generally didnt come back until things got a bit better. In third year he was quite willing to drop hermione, who had been their friend for years, risked her life along side them, over a broom and an already half dead rat.

Yeah, it's almost like he was acting like an average boy/teenager would in similar circumstances (and by "typical" I mean actually boy-in-the-street, not destined hero, child protagonist or even gaming nerd (et al), I mean the sort of lad, right in the middle of the class intellectually that I would have been in the same class of in time that period (and indeed did).)

People are a little too fond of holding Ron to adult standards of behavior, when it's quite clear he's a very typical teenager (especially considering the time-period and rather insular upbringing)... Actually, he's probably a lot better behaved than most thirty years on, considering, from what I hear from my mate who's a teacher. And yes, the typical teenagers () are kind of asshats (often unthinkingly). You or I may not have been, but let's face it we, the posters on a fantasy roleplaying webcomic board are not typical. The fact that, in the end, Ron always came through is what actually distinguishes him.

Ron's occasionally poor reactions are, while not exactly good behavior, hardly incomprehensible or unforgivable.

pendell

2014-02-04, 02:03 PM

Yeah, it's almost like he was acting like an average boy/teenager would in similar circumstances (and by "typical" I mean actually boy-in-the-street, not destined hero, child protagonist or even gaming nerd (et al), I mean the sort of lad, right in the middle of the class intellectually that I would have been in the same class of in time that period (and indeed did).)

People are a little too fond of holding Ron to adult standards of behavior, when it's quite clear he's a very typical teenager (especially considering the time-period and rather insular upbringing)... Actually, he's probably a lot better behaved than most thirty years on, considering, from what I hear from my mate who's a teacher. And yes, the typical teenagers () are kind of asshats (often unthinkingly). You or I may not have been, but let's face it we, the posters on a fantasy roleplaying webcomic board are not typical. The fact that, in the end, Ron always came through is what actually distinguishes him.

Ron's occasionally poor reactions are, while not exactly good behavior, hardly incomprehensible or unforgivable.

Agree completely. Ron was an average joe without special gifts or intelligence but he was always there in the end. I doubt Harry and Hermione could have made it at all if Ron wasn't pitching in there with them.

Although one thing I didn't care for was Harry's favoritism to Ron on the quidditch team back when they were going through the "Weasley is our king" phase. I don't care how good a friend Ron is, if he can't keep the quoffle out of the net he has no business being Keeper.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

ryuplaneswalker

2014-02-04, 02:36 PM

Okay, first off - the Dumbledore reveal wasn't "pandering." It was a very, very positive thing, particularly for the thousands upon thousands of LGBT youth that read the books.

Second, you're acting like she snapped awake one day, saw how empty her front lawn was, and grabbed the nearest megaphone to yell "I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT TO MAKE! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

Because that's not what happened. Wonderland/Emma Watson went to interview her. They asked her the question. And she said what was on her mind.

Whether you agree or disagree with her point of view, the bottom line is that they are her characters and she has the right to speak her mind.

No, the Dumbledore reveal was pandering, it was not positive it was a writer getting free PR. It would have been a positive thing to have actually mentioned him as gay in the books, but she didn't. Which was a shame because Dumbledore/Griswald as lovers and one turning evil would have been a much better back story than the sister thing in my opinion.

And do I think she woke up one day and just needed attention? No but do I think she made an active decision in that split second to say something she knows will get headlines on Tor? Yes. Yes I do.

And yeah they are her characters, doesn't mean we can't call bullcrap when she starts shoveling it.

Traab

2014-02-04, 03:21 PM

Agree completely. Ron was an average joe without special gifts or intelligence but he was always there in the end. I doubt Harry and Hermione could have made it at all if Ron wasn't pitching in there with them.

Although one thing I didn't care for was Harry's favoritism to Ron on the quidditch team back when they were going through the "Weasley is our king" phase. I don't care how good a friend Ron is, if he can't keep the quoffle out of the net he has no business being Keeper.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Honestly, aside from the chess game, im hard pressed to think of any scenario where he was truly required. Im not saying he was a villain, or a huge pile of butt release, im just saying he had nothing in common with hermione in any way. Yeah yeah, opposites attract and all that, but there was NOTHING they could connect over besides harry. It wasnt that they didnt share interests, its that their interests were diametrically opposite from each other. Its not like, "I like basketball he likes soccer." Its, "I like rescuing animals, he likes setting animals on fire."(Only, not sadistically evil) They arent just not interested in each others interests, they flat out hate the others interests.

Weimann

2014-02-04, 03:29 PM

No, the Dumbledore reveal was pandering, it was not positive it was a writer getting free PR. It would have been a positive thing to have actually mentioned him as gay in the books, but she didn't. Which was a shame because Dumbledore/Griswald as lovers and one turning evil would have been a much better back story than the sister thing in my opinion.It might have been pandering, and it might have been done out of desire for "free PR" (as opposed to paid-for PR, I guess? :smallconfused:). However, you can't say that it wasn't positive. Many under-represented people have expressed positive sentiments towards it, and while I fully agree it would have been much better to have it integrated in the book, that doesn't make it bad. It demonstrably wasn't.

It doesn't actually make Dumbledore gay, of course. It just suggests the interpretation that he is, and given the source of the interpretation it's a pretty weighty one that people seem to like. But this leads into the next part.

And yeah they are her characters, doesn't mean we can't call bullcrap when she starts shoveling it.In fact, I think you'll find that if Rowling says something people like, people will accept it and cheer. If she says something they don't like, they'll disregard it and substitute their own reality. Bottom line, they're not actually her characters any more. In an IP sense, they are, but the books are all she has written about them and her influence over them ends there. After that, interpretation is open, and the more reasonable an interpretation seems to the big mass of people, the more legitimate that interpretation will be. That's why the Dumbledore thing is generally accepted, since most people approve of improved and diversified presence of homosexual characters in culture, while this one is getting hotly contested, since there are many different opinions on how it should have ended up.

I'm personally very happy with the original outcome.

warty goblin

2014-02-04, 03:53 PM

Honestly, aside from the chess game, im hard pressed to think of any scenario where he was truly required. Im not saying he was a villain, or a huge pile of butt release, im just saying he had nothing in common with hermione in any way. Yeah yeah, opposites attract and all that, but there was NOTHING they could connect over besides harry. It wasnt that they didnt share interests, its that their interests were diametrically opposite from each other. Its not like, "I like basketball he likes soccer." Its, "I like rescuing animals, he likes setting animals on fire."(Only, not sadistically evil) They arent just not interested in each others interests, they flat out hate the others interests.
My Dad's a stringent atheist; organized religion makes his skin crawl. My Mom's an ordained Buddhist priest; I've never seen her happier than the day of her ordination. So far as I can tell, they've got a quite good relationship.

Janus

2014-02-04, 04:21 PM

When I think of Dumbledore being gay, I just remember a Time article (written by a gay man) that thanked J.K. Rowling for her intentions, but pointed out that she still failed to show it in the books and also chose an old man who spends his days manipulating the life of a young boy.

I sometimes wonder what some of these people are fans of, exactly, when they not only make up stuff that's not even hinted at in the text but actively contradict things that the text makes explicitly clear.
I know what you mean. When I have a non-canon ship (again, Guile/Cammy), I keep in mind that it's freaking non-canon.

I have a theory. It's a bit controversial, but I think it successfully explains the phenomenon.

Shippers are crazy. Approach with caution.
Well, there's that, too. You definitely have a point.

Sotharsyl

2014-02-04, 04:21 PM

I sometimes wonder what some of these people are fans of, exactly, when they not only make up stuff that's not even hinted at in the text but actively contradict things that the text makes explicitly clear.

Shipping is the "crowd sourcing" or "cloud computing" of writing in a way, let me explain:

The author may create the world but no singular human mind will be able to treat every member of a big cast with the same care and attention as he/she does with the main character and simulate all their reactions.

Plus there is the fact that you can't devote all your time to writing romance so odds are you're going to have lots and lots of characters with no explicit romantic plot.

Here come in the fanfic authors who mostly idenitfy with certain characters and thus can emulate their thought process better than the authors, because they can 100% into that one character and the feel they can channel they RL experience into them, thus it will be far easier for a fanfic author to find a match for let's say Pansy Parkingson than Rowling.

That's because there's probably a lot of female slytherin fans who have a better synergy with P.P (and thus care about writing her a romance after Draco even tough canon ends with her being dumped by Draco ) in contrast to J.K who has the best synergy with a female Gryffindor namely Hermione.

Rons of the world...

The entire Weasley family seems a bit odd, if you ask me. Capable of far more depth than they display. I don't know how much of this is canon, but it seems like they end up in Gryffindor a little more often than they should.

None of them are particularly 'heroic' in the obvious, yet I get the feeling that people like Dumbledore and other leaders of the sane wizarding world have always depended on them to fight against the dark forces. Not quite like they're a secret weapon, but just a lineage that carries heroism in a carpetbag rather than a cape.

Hufflepuff uses a badger as a mascot. You'd think they'd be the ones who step out of the shadows of mediocrity and help save the world with an unexpected ferocity.

I think with the Weasley there was a missed opportunity to throw in some shades of grey for example Percy to me always seemed to be a better fit for Slytherin (he's very ambitious) or Ravenclaw (he's highly intelligent and his girlfriend was from Ravenclaw I imagine they met up while being nerds in the library together).

It would have been interesting to have Percy being in another house than the rest of his family (it would have provided us with more good/moral Slytherin) and see them nagging him for not being in Gryffindor.

If Rowling wants money/attention there's that good Slytherin plot hole which could use some filling in or maybe an official RPG but then that'd require a functional (non-author fiat) magic system.

Qwertystop

2014-02-04, 04:30 PM

Yeah. Despite that, according to Hagrid, all the Dark wizards were Slytherins, that's no reason for all the Slytherins to be Dark. Especially considering that it's Hagrid giving the information. And yet...

ryuplaneswalker

2014-02-04, 04:34 PM

In regards to the dumbledore thing, my final words on it.

It was exploitation, I don't care how "positive" it was if she wanted to have a gay character, then it should have been in the books not five years after the last one was released to bump up the sales.

In fact, I think you'll find that if Rowling says something people like, people will accept it and cheer. If she says something they don't like, they'll disregard it and substitute their own reality.

That is called Cherry Picking and I don't do that, she wants to start rewriting things that is fine, her work she can do that. She would be better served talking about how Hermonie taught purebloods how the muggle world works than who is shagging who. Cause that would be a far more interesting story than them getting divorced.

The Glyphstone

2014-02-04, 04:46 PM

When I think of Dumbledore being gay, I just remember a Time article (written by a gay man) that thanked J.K. Rowling for her intentions, but pointed out that she still failed to show it in the books and also chose an old man who spends his days manipulating the life of a young boy.
.

That's what I always think of (not that article, but the sentiment), and figure that was - to a point - part of why it's not ever explicitly mentioned in the text. Dumbledore's role from Harry's perspective is a mentor, his role from the omniscient perspective is the chessmaster manipulator. All defining his sexuality would have done was open the floodgates to insinuations of pedophilia, so it stayed as an offscreen detail the way Victor Krum's eventual partner did, or the factoid that Luna ended up marrying a descendant of Newt Scamander. People like to criticize Rowling for poor world-building, and they have some points; but where she lacks in world-building, she makes up for by obviously thinking about her characters beyond their narrative purpose. They get lives outside the pages, even if only in her head.

Psyren

2014-02-04, 05:41 PM

And do I think she woke up one day and just needed attention? No but do I think she made an active decision in that split second to say something she knows will get headlines on Tor? Yes. Yes I do.

Everything she says about the books will get headlines. Should she shut up for the rest of her life?

If the choice is between controversy and silence, I'll take option A everytime. Don't like it, then don't read her interviews.

In fact, where was all this outrage 2 years ago when she said she planned for Ron to die midway through?

Bottom line, they're not actually her characters any more.

Blah blah death of the author blah. There's a word for that, and it's called fanfiction. Nothing wrong with that of course, but all the more reason for her to speak her mind when people are just going to come up with their own stories anyway.

Math_Mage

2014-02-04, 05:44 PM

Okay, first off - the Dumbledore reveal wasn't "pandering." It was a very, very positive thing, particularly for the thousands upon thousands of LGBT youth that read the books.
I think it could be interpreted as mixed, actually, since it changes Dumbledore's message from "Love is the best" to "Love is the best, except for my feelings for Grindelwald, which blinded me and let him use me and contributed to my sister's death." But that clearly isn't an intended message of the story, and I'm loathe to take the position that minorities in stories have to represent their entire group.

Psyren

2014-02-04, 05:50 PM

I think it could be interpreted as mixed, actually, since it changes Dumbledore's message from "Love is the best" to "Love is the best, except for my feelings for Grindelwald, which blinded me and let him use me and contributed to my sister's death." But that clearly isn't an intended message of the story, and I'm loathe to take the position that minorities in stories have to represent their entire group.

That wasn't love though. Certainly not on Grindelwald's part, and Dumbledore eventually realized it too. Infatuation/exploitation, yes, but not love.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-04, 05:56 PM

In fact, where was all this outrage 2 years ago when she said she planned for Ron to die midway through?

Wait, what?

Poor Ron... Apparently even JKR struggles to like him...!

That's what I always think of (not that article, but the sentiment), and figure that was - to a point - part of why it's not ever explicitly mentioned in the text. Dumbledore's role from Harry's perspective is a mentor, his role from the omniscient perspective is the chessmaster manipulator. All defining his sexuality would have done was open the floodgates to insinuations of pedophilia, so it stayed as an offscreen detail the way Victor Krum's eventual partner did, or the factoid that Luna ended up marrying a descendant of Newt Scamander. People like to criticize Rowling for poor world-building, and they have some points; but where she lacks in world-building, she makes up for by obviously thinking about her characters beyond their narrative purpose. They get lives outside the pages, even if only in her head.

That is an interesting and very valid point.

Gnoman

2014-02-04, 06:09 PM

Quite apart from all that, the "Dumbledore is gay" reveal came from Rowling's vetoing of a screenwriter's "let's make Dumbldore ramble about his old girlfriends!!!!!!!!" plan, and was originally nothing more than a scribbled note in a margin. If she did it for publicity, that's not the way that it would have been done.

Aolbain

2014-02-04, 06:19 PM

This is pissing me off way more then it should. I mean, I haven't really touched anything HP related since I was 12.

Edit: Looked around a bit and wow are people still invested in this.

Traab

2014-02-04, 08:43 PM

My Dad's a stringent atheist; organized religion makes his skin crawl. My Mom's an ordained Buddhist priest; I've never seen her happier than the day of her ordination. So far as I can tell, they've got a quite good relationship.

And do they have nothing in common except for you? Nothing they cant at least appreciate about each other? Somehow I doubt it. Ron and hermione are opposite in almost every possible way. Everything one stands for, the other opposes.

Socratov

2014-02-04, 10:25 PM

Qwertystop

2014-02-04, 10:40 PM

Well apart from the pairings, I always had this problem with the sorting int the 4 houses. their defining characteristics:

Gryffindor: Courage
Slytherin: Ambition
Ravenclaw: Intelligence
Huffelpuff: Hard work (or should I say Dilligence)

are all fine and dandy, but used in a bogus way to begin with: Harry, Ginny and Hermoine could ahve been put into Slytherin for their ambition alone. Hermoine and Neville in Huffelpuff and Heroine and Draco in Ravenclaw. The thing is that in the end the hosues were just classified in types of characters: Gryffindor: main character house, Slytherin main antagonist house, Ravenclaw: geeky sidecharacters, Huffelpuff: dorky sidecharacters.

I was happy that this was circumvented for a bit during the tri-wizard tournament with Cedric.

Well, in Harry's case, we know that his request does weigh into it. Hermione said she was considered for Ravenclaw. Not sure where you're getting ambition from for Ginny and Hermione (or Harry but we do have the Hat's word on that).

Personally, I like HPMOR's view on it - the Hat tries very hard to fit people in with their requests, but also tries to keep the numbers evenish if it can. A lot of Slytherins were exceptionally anti-muggleborn (or just notably evil - that does tend to require ambition) way back, and the House got associated with their views. So then anyone who could fit in Slytherin or somewhere else goes under thinking "not Slytherin," and goes somewhere else. To balance this out, the people with no particular virtues but also not enough morals to want to avoid Slytherin get put in there to pad the numbers (and because they have to go somewhere, even if they don't fit anywhere).

This does break down a bit with some of the later Songs when the Hat presents Hufflepuff as "...she took the rest..." instead of "...just and loyal...", but it works with the original presentation.

Kitten Champion

2014-02-04, 11:52 PM

warty goblin

2014-02-05, 12:23 AM

And do they have nothing in common except for you? Nothing they cant at least appreciate about each other? Somehow I doubt it. Ron and hermione are opposite in almost every possible way. Everything one stands for, the other opposes.

Well there's also my sister. Other than that, um... you know, they may be in a lot of the ways that people tend to define like interests about as far apart as any two people I know.

Anyway, I think you're also painting Ron and Hermione as far more diametrically opposed than the books - particularly Deathly Hallows - shows them as being.

Devils_Advocate

2014-02-05, 12:34 AM

This does break down a bit with some of the later Songs when the Hat presents Hufflepuff as "...she took the rest..." instead of "...just and loyal...", but it works with the original presentation.
Having read only some fanfiction and the wiki, it's kind of odd that I bothered to read this thread, and I'm surely not the most qualified individual to address this issue, but nevertheless I've developed an opinion on the matter that I'd like to share.

Huffelpuff values hard work and fairness. As such, it prizes those qualities in students. But ALSO as a consequence of that, they're willing to take anyone and aren't afraid of the work required to drum those values into students who don't already have them.

So, yeah, they kind of serve as a dumping ground for individuals with no particular virtue, but they're not JUST that, and if you think that that makes Huffelpuff suck, you're missing the point. They take those people BECAUSE of Huffelpuff's associated virtues, not because Huffelpuff has no particular virtue of its own.

Make sense?

Legato Endless

2014-02-05, 01:05 AM

Huffelpuff values hard work and fairness. As such, it prizes those qualities in students. But ALSO as a consequence of that, they're willing to take anyone and aren't afraid of the work required to drum those values into students who don't already have them.

So, yeah, they kind of serve as a dumping ground for individuals with no particular virtue, but they're not JUST that, and if you think that that makes Huffelpuff suck, you're missing the point. They take those people BECAUSE of Huffelpuff's associated virtues, not because Huffelpuff has no particular virtue of its own.

Make sense?

The real reason Hufflepuff is mocked by the internet and most Harry Potter parodies is because of how unbalanced the factions are. Cedric is the only member of any real plot significance, the dozen(s) of other members we know don't really get much of anything in the narrative. The best that's later stated is they also have the most members to remain to fight in battle of Hogwarts...after Gryffindor. The fact they explicitly produce the least highly accomplished wizards on average just adds fuel to the fire.

Meanwhile, House Antagonist contains the glorious distinction that while not all of them are evil...everyone who was really evil still came from their house. Furthermore, Antagonist's defining characteristic is ambition...which really isn't evil, despite what Rent and other paths of fiction would have you believe.

Visual Aid (http://lolsnaps.com/news/42250/0/)

Phobia

2014-02-05, 01:51 AM

I always wished she showed a good Slytherin [no, NOT Slughorn!] for once for all of us ambitious outcast rule-breaking goth kids reading those books as teens. It would have been so easy (I.E. Maybe make a slytherin background character be in Dumbledorea Army and NOT betray them). But she never did. That was my biggest disapointment. And then she goes and doesn't have possibly one of the most beloved and influential characters of our time (new Obi-Wan) and certainly one of the most positive depictions of a gay person in media not be gay were anyone could see. :smallsigh:

hamishspence

2014-02-05, 02:29 AM

I blame the Sorting Hat and House system for all the problems in the Wizarding world.

The Sorting Hat itself mentions that its job might not be a good thing:

"But this year I'll go further
Listen closely to my song
Though condemned I am to split you
Still I worry that it's wrong
And though I must do my duty
And must quarter every year
Still I worry if my Sorting
May not bring the end I fear."

Devils_Advocate

2014-02-05, 02:39 AM

The Founders obviously didn't leave in place adequate means of amending the Hogwarts Constitution or whatever.

I imagine that Hufflepuff, Slytherin, Gryffindor, and Ravenclaw have more than their share of useless do-nothings, wicked villains, reckless fools, and socially inept nerds respectively. Each has its own weaknesses as well as strengths, like the Colors of Magic: the Gathering. Which is entirely unsurprising, really, since the houses are pretty straightforwardly White, Black, Red, and Blue.

It seems to be a common enough sentiment amongst the Harry Potter fandom that Slytherin is in desperate need of reform, as its overall culture is just way more, well, awful than it needs to be, with emphasis on all of the wrong things.

Kris Strife

2014-02-05, 03:16 AM

It probably doesn't help that Slytherin's dormitories are in the dungeons.

Kitten Champion

2014-02-05, 03:21 AM

It probably doesn't help that Slytherin's dormitories are in the dungeons.

Dungeons are cool. Towers are cool.

Hufflepuff get a basement.

Phobia

2014-02-05, 04:04 AM

And it's explicitly not true that any wizard that ever went bad came from Slytherin- Peter Pettigrew was the worst there ever was! And even without the knowledge that he was evil people told horror stories about Sirius Black but I guess we're just not counting that.

Werekat

2014-02-05, 05:36 AM

On the Dumbledore thing: sheesh, give the writer a break. Any writer knows tons more about her cast than she lets into any book. Because excessive details about secondary characters - especially ones likely to spark debate - will detract from the narrative focus on the main character. Rowling likely has a truckload of material, including sexual preferences and all, on all the secondary characters. But she couldn't include all that, the narrative is huge as it is.

Yes, when she was reviewing a screenwriter's work, she said it was inconsistent with a detail that didn't actually make it into the book. All par for the course.

If you involve a primary or secondary character with a heated subject, you automatically make it a plot point. And then you see whether it adds to or detracts from the narrative. If you want to be explicitly supportive and inclusive, but not write a story whose focus is on 'hot' issues, then you actually insert this sort of thing into tertiary characters, not secondary. The waiter, the business-lady, the personnel or visitors at St. Mungo's, you name it. Heck, even Luna, Neville, Hannah, Blaise, whoever from those would probably do. Why she didn't do that - beats me. Maybe for the same reason Rich wrote more males in his cast initially.

In our case, the matter is made even more complicated by the fact that the book is from subjective first third person, we're seeing everything from Harry's point of view. And I personally think it would have been... Really strange to see Dumbledore discussing his sexuality with his student. As a teacher, I would have said just about the same thing in his place: "We were close, but then stuff happened." I wouldn't have elaborated on the closeness.

I can see a possible way to get around that particular bit of awkwardness, i.e. having someone out Dumbledore forcefully, like one of the reporters slandering him, but then I see only three options to follow up on it: Harry spends time talking about it with Dumbledore when they have much more interesting things to discuss, such as the afterlife or the Horcruxes; someone Harry trusts confirming the slander (and in that case we still see it as the subjective view of that character); or leave it hanging, in which case the fans cook and eat Rowling. So she leaves it out, just as doesn't focus on the sexuality of the heterosexual characters: note that the biggest thing they have is marriage - no stories about lovers, former or future. Not writing Dumbledore's past fancy in explicitly, I think, is the right choice in this setup.

Tl;dr: give Rowling a break on the gay thing, it's not a walk in the park to keep plot threads coherent and cut details down only to relevant ones as it is.

Edited for a mistake.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-05, 07:14 AM

On the Dumbledore thing: sheesh, give the writer a break. Any writer knows tons more about her cast than she lets into any book. Because excessive details about secondary characters - especially ones likely to spark debate - will detract from the narrative focus on the main character. Rowling likely has a truckload of material, including sexual preferences and all, on all the secondary characters. But she couldn't include all that, the narrative is huge as it is.

Yes, when she was reviewing a screenwriter's work, she said it was inconsistent with a detail that didn't actually make it into the book. All par for the course.

If you involve a primary or secondary character with a heated subject, you automatically make it a plot point. And then you see whether it adds to or detracts from the narrative. If you want to be explicitly supportive and inclusive, but not write a story whose focus is on 'hot' issues, then you actually insert this sort of thing into tertiary characters, not secondary. The waiter, the business-lady, the personnel or visitors at St. Mungo's, you name it. Heck, even Luna, Neville, Hannah, Blaise, whoever from those would probably do. Why she didn't do that - beats me. Maybe for the same reason Rich wrote more males in his cast initially.

In our case, the matter is made even more complicated by the fact that the book is from subjective first person, we're seeing everything from Harry's point of view. And I personally think it would have been... Really strange to see Dumbledore discussing his sexuality with his student. As a teacher, I would have said just about the same thing in his place: "We were close, but then stuff happened." I wouldn't have elaborated on the closeness.

I can see a possible way to get around that particular bit of awkwardness, i.e. having someone out Dumbledore forcefully, like one of the reporters slandering him, but then I see only three options to follow up on it: Harry spends time talking about it with Dumbledore when they have much more interesting things to discuss, such as the afterlife or the Horcruxes; someone Harry trusts confirming the slander (and in that case we still see it as the subjective view of that character); or leave it hanging, in which case the fans cook and eat Rowling. So she leaves it out, just as doesn't focus on the sexuality of the heterosexual characters: note that the biggest thing they have is marriage - no stories about lovers, former or future. Not writing Dumbledore's past fancy in explicitly, I think, is the right choice in this setup.

Tl;dr: give Rowling a break on the gay thing, it's not a walk in the park to keep plot threads coherent and cut details down only to relevant ones as it is.

Yeah. The fact that it IS an issue AT ALL is a socital problem, not a fault in Rowling's work - if humans weren't so damn factional all the time (see also Hogwart's Biggest Problem) then it should have attracted no more attention than Rowling correcting someone on a character's hair colour. Okay, maybe a fraction more - but the point stands someone's sexuality (and/or lack thereof...) should not be a point of importance, outside of fictional or actual romances/relationships.

Dumbledore's sexuality had NO BEARING on the main plot - I remind you if Rowling had never said anything, the majority would have continued to believe, like as not, that his relationship with Grindelwald was a friendship gone south and nothing more. At BEST it adds a slightly deeper layer of tragedy on the Grindelwald aspect - but that is really only tangential to the problem of Voldemort.

Sotharsyl

2014-02-05, 09:59 AM

Dungeons are cool. Towers are cool.

Hufflepuff get a basement.

It probably doesn't help that Slytherin's dormitories are in the dungeons.

Sorry for repeating myself but it's clear, at least for me, that if JK wants/needs to write another HP book:

One Good Slytherin: Or why not all of us are fantasy nazis.
Hufflepufs the True story: Or why Neville was not baddass enough and had to settle on Gryffindor.
Ravenclaw: A completely scientific study on why nerds will dominate both the wizarding and muggle world.

would have quite few buyers.

I myself would take them over most of the extra books we got, a history of quiditch really ?

Psyren

2014-02-05, 10:39 AM

Well, we got one good Slytherin (Snape) and it's kind of funny that the smartest witch in the school was a Gryffindor. RC and HP kind of get the short end of the stick really.

The Troubadour

2014-02-05, 10:45 AM

Frankly it's less that and more the fact that she's still going on about it after years.

Well, what else is she going to do? Write another successful novel, as if she were actually a writer? :-P

Sapphire Guard

2014-02-05, 12:25 PM

It's not as though she phoned up a newspaper and said 'Oh, by the way, this pairing shouldn't have happened.' She was asked a direct question in an interview. So that complaint isn't with JK, it's whoever did the interview.

Psyren

2014-02-05, 12:51 PM

Colbert weighs in (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/432755/february-03-2014/j-k--rowling-s-ron-and-hermione-bombshell) :smallbiggrin:

Well, what else is she going to do? Write another successful novel, as if she were actually a writer? :-P

You mean like Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them? Novels like that? :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone

2014-02-05, 01:29 PM

Well, what else is she going to do? Write another successful novel, as if she were actually a writer? :-P

Nope, she's definitely not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Casual_Vacancy) writing any more successful novels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo%27s_Calling):smallbiggrin:

The Troubadour

2014-02-05, 07:50 PM

Nope, she's definitely not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Casual_Vacancy) writing any more successful novels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cuckoo%27s_Calling):smallbiggrin:

Both of which only sold that well because of Rowling's name. I've read that "Cuckoo's Calling" is actually a pretty good novel (unlike "Casual Vacancy"), but it only started selling well once it was leaked that Galbraith is a pseudonym for Rowling.

You mean like Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them? Novels like that? :smalltongue:

If I'm not mistaken, that's coming out as a movie, not a novel.

Qwertystop

2014-02-05, 08:06 PM

If I'm not mistaken, that's coming out as a movie, not a novel.

Not a novel, but it was printed as a thin paperback, nominally an abridged copy of the in-world book (as was Quidditch through the Ages).

Coidzor

2014-02-05, 08:33 PM

It might have been pandering, and it might have been done out of desire for "free PR" (as opposed to paid-for PR, I guess? :smallconfused:). However, you can't say that it wasn't positive. Many under-represented people have expressed positive sentiments towards it, and while I fully agree it would have been much better to have it integrated in the book, that doesn't make it bad. It demonstrably wasn't.

Yes, yes, because it was somewhat good, we're not allowed to find flaws with how she went about doing it at all, ever. :smalltongue:

The Glyphstone

2014-02-05, 09:04 PM

Both of which only sold that well because of Rowling's name. I've read that "Cuckoo's Calling" is actually a pretty good novel (unlike "Casual Vacancy"), but it only started selling well once it was leaked that Galbraith is a pseudonym for Rowling.

Still successful, however it managed to be so. So the original claim that she was making controversial statements just to generate herself publicity because she couldn't succeed writing new material isn't holding water.

Gnoman

2014-02-05, 09:29 PM

Both of which only sold that well because of Rowling's name. I've read that "Cuckoo's Calling" is actually a pretty good novel (unlike "Casual Vacancy"), but it only started selling well once it was leaked that Galbraith is a pseudonym for Rowling.

It was only selling "poorly" by JKR standards. For a debut novel from a completely unknown author (which is what they were presenting it as) it was doing well above average.

Traab

2014-02-05, 09:46 PM

Yeah. The fact that it IS an issue AT ALL is a socital problem, not a fault in Rowling's work - if humans weren't so damn factional all the time (see also Hogwart's Biggest Problem) then it should have attracted no more attention than Rowling correcting someone on a character's hair colour. Okay, maybe a fraction more - but the point stands someone's sexuality (and/or lack thereof...) should not be a point of importance, outside of fictional or actual romances/relationships.

Dumbledore's sexuality had NO BEARING on the main plot - I remind you if Rowling had never said anything, the majority would have continued to believe, like as not, that his relationship with Grindelwald was a friendship gone south and nothing more. At BEST it adds a slightly deeper layer of tragedy on the Grindelwald aspect - but that is really only tangential to the problem of Voldemort.

Too me the real issue is, she just flat out declared him gay, and there was no reason for her to do so. It changed nothing, there were no real signs, it had no impact on the story. It was just as meaningless an assertion as declaring he especially loves to play ping pong with gus, the second shift filch type in hogwarts. (There is no way filch is wandering the halls 24/7, despite how often he bumps into the main cast at random times) We never meet gus, we never hear about him in the story, and his ping pong skills are equally never mentioned or displayed. So whats the point of mentioning them at all?

Thats what bugged me. Not that he was gay, but that declaring he was gay served no purpose, it didnt solve a mystery, (Oh, so THATS how he managed to backhand a live grenade over the parapet so smoothly, he has had practice playing ping pong!) It didnt explain things about him that didnt make sense, it didnt serve any purpose at all. She could have just as easily declared Terry Boot to be transgender. He was born a girl, identified as male, and kept the name. No evidence in story to confirm or deny that, it makes no difference to the story itself, so you are just sort of left standing there going, "... yeah, and?"

The Glyphstone

2014-02-05, 10:00 PM

Too me the real issue is, she just flat out declared him gay, and there was no reason for her to do so. It changed nothing, there were no real signs, it had no impact on the story. It was just as meaningless an assertion as declaring he especially loves to play ping pong with gus, the second shift filch type in hogwarts. (There is no way filch is wandering the halls 24/7, despite how often he bumps into the main cast at random times) We never meet gus, we never hear about him in the story, and his ping pong skills are equally never mentioned or displayed. So whats the point of mentioning them at all?

Thats what bugged me. Not that he was gay, but that declaring he was gay served no purpose, it didnt solve a mystery, (Oh, so THATS how he managed to backhand a live grenade over the parapet so smoothly, he has had practice playing ping pong!) It didnt explain things about him that didnt make sense, it didnt serve any purpose at all. She could have just as easily declared Terry Boot to be transgender. He was born a girl, identified as male, and kept the name. No evidence in story to confirm or deny that, it makes no difference to the story itself, so you are just sort of left standing there going, "... yeah, and?"

See, that's why it doesn't bug me at all, for the exact same reasons. It shows to me, like I said upthread, that her characters are more than just their text presentation/narrative role - they have lives before, after, and between the actual books. It wasn't supposed to solve a mystery or explain anything, its only purpose was making him a more developed character in her mind. And that's good enough for me.

Math_Mage

2014-02-05, 11:11 PM

One wonders why such extraneous detail is bothersome here, but not in, say, Tolkien's work.

Werekat

2014-02-06, 01:26 AM

Phobia

2014-02-06, 03:04 AM

Jayngfet

2014-02-06, 03:38 AM

I blame the Sorting Hat and House system for all the problems in the Wizarding world.

Wizards are already a highly classist and insular society of which there are few children, you further isolate those among the children with Lawful Evil tendencies into their own prefabricated clique, and are we supposed to be surprised when they come out monsters?

Rowling showed with Snape, Draco, and to a certain extent Harry that people aren't locked into some predefined nature. Under the right conditions or with the right motivation they can fight the oppressive hate permeating their society and become better people. Being put in the aristocratic skinhead quarters is not the right conditions, and any motivation they'd have to change would be quickly snuffed out by the thought that they're going to have to live with these bastards for nearly a decade.

One of many problems with Hogwarts.

I'm just gonna go ahead and be the one to say ...duh?

People forget that Hogwarts was founded in medieval Scotland, and a Medieval Scotland before chivalry was a thing and the average serf was in a very literal sense a slave to a castle owning master. It's rooted in traditions the muggle world wouldn't have practiced for centuries and ideals that were considered abhorrent even into the late medieval period. We're talking about a society that diverged most fully around a time where ideals are so alien compared to our own that the only reason we can understand them is a general trickling in of muggleborns giving things a rough appearance of modern normalcy. Hell, compared to the period it was founded in, the house system is downright progressive since it sorts everyone by personality and drive rather than bloodline or status.

Honestly what I'd like to see is a real printed copy of Hogwarts: A History. Some surface elements like the Triwizard tournament give me the idea that it may have root in real life history, given the reasonably frequent Scottish-French alliances around it's founding, and the fact that both countries have a reasonable degree of bloodline mixing with Nordic nations Durmstrang recruits from due to viking occupation of Normandy and the northeastern british isles.

The obvious questions this raises are obviously where the heck the other schools would inevitably be. Given that broom technology was kinda crap when these schools were formed and countries students come from now were both very far away and often hostile with one another, there'd logically be other schools(Especially since there's obviously no trains in the medieval era). There'd need to be an English and Irish school that shut down at some point on the isles, and about a half dozen at bare minimum between Beaubaxtons and Durmstrang. Not to mention the dozens ringing the Mediterranian and anything too advanced for seventh years and equivalent to university that'd inevitably pop up over time, since Hogwarts doesn't seem to have anything resembling graduate school.

There's an obvious internal logic to things, but we see so little of the setting that everything we do see simply invites further questions.

Werekat

2014-02-06, 04:36 AM

Harry Potters sexuality had no bearing on the main plot either and he still snogged a girl once a book after he was old enough. Heck- you know whose sexuality really didn't have an effect on the main plot? Percy! But we still know for sure he was straight! Other random Weasley brothers? Yup, girl based romance subplots. We even know about Aberforth's exploits!

None of them are Harry's teachers and mentors. What do we know about Flitwick? McGonnagall? Trelawney? Binns? Sinistra?

If my memory doesn't fail me, the only teachers whose sexuality is in any way mentioned are Snape, because he was in love with Lily and that is a major plot point, Lupin, because the tragic death was nice, and possibly Hagrid, whose infatuation with the French school director was used for a small plot point about giants (but which might not have been romantic, if I remember correctly - just "another half-giant, wow!").

I repeat: teachers do not usually discuss their sexuality with their students. If they do in fiction, there's going to be a good reason for it.

The reason Aberforth got a mention is because he was minor enough for Harry not to have to talk to him about it. You can just leave it at slander without having to clear it up through a dialogue with the main character.

Math_Mage

2014-02-06, 04:37 AM

Harry Potters sexuality had no bearing on the main plot either and he still snogged a girl once a book after he was old enough. Heck- you know whose sexuality really didn't have an effect on the main plot? Percy! But we still know for sure he was straight! Other random Weasley brothers? Yup, girl based romance subplots. We even know about Aberforth's exploits! There was a slanderous article written in-universe and we still get absolutely no indication that he is gay whatsoever. We know for a fact that Hagrid was straight of all people. So don't you tell me that they didn't say Dumbledoore is gay because it didn't affect the main story. That is stupid.
Since the main story is "Harry Potter goes to magic wizard high school," the high school wizard romance is kind of relevant. The crusty old farts running the school? Not so much (with Snape the notable exception, for obvious reasons--and Hagrid, well, um...shrug). I don't remember feeling the absence of Professor McGonagall's sexuality from the plot.

Phobia

2014-02-06, 06:20 AM

How many of these advanced the main plot and weren't just for unnecessary world building? Which is the reason laid down for why it never said Dumbledoore is gay. How needed was it to hook up Lupine or Hagrid, and what did those characters ultimately accomplish story wise because of their relationships? Absolutely nothing. Which is my point. Professor McGonagall is not is question because it was never revealed later that she was intended to be gay, you follow? Admitting he was gay after the fact is, quite literally, robbing kids of a positive gay icon they could grow up reading about.

Yes, Hagrid and Lupin and Snape were Harry's teachers and mentors. What do we know at all about Flitwick or Trelawney? Pretty much nothing. They were one note characters that showed up a handful of times, not even counting the other two you mentioned. Dumbledoore was so important he could be on the cover. One note characters that did end up with a romance were people like Bill and Fleur. You don't think Dumbledoores love story could have been twice as tragic as Lupins? (And most would say they didn't need Lupins 'tragic romance' at all)

You all keep mentioning Snape like it's some magic answer that will shut me down but it's not. It was told in flashback form to tell us more about the man that was shaped from those experiences. Sounds kinda, oh I dunno, exactly what they could have done with Dumledoore.

Dracon1us

2014-02-06, 06:43 AM

He did die - and the tie between them died then too. So, only natural that the cycle would be broken at that point, and he could go on living while Voldy went moldy.

He did die. Dumbly (the true hero :smallsmile:) manage to save his life trough the deathly hallows...he become master of death.
the only sane persone able to become one.

On topic... JK, you did a good work.
don't let fangirls doubt that :smallbiggrin:

Dracon1us

2014-02-06, 06:55 AM

Harry Potters sexuality had no bearing on the main plot either and he still snogged a girl once a book after he was old enough. Heck- you know whose sexuality really didn't have an effect on the main plot? Percy! But we still know for sure he was straight! Other random Weasley brothers? Yup, girl based romance subplots. We even know about Aberforth's exploits! There was a slanderous article written in-universe and we still get absolutely no indication that he is gay whatsoever. We know for a fact that Hagrid was straight of all people. So don't you tell me that they didn't say Dumbledoore is gay because it didn't affect the main story. That is stupid.

the harry potter series was criticized by christians (and muslims?) group for... praising sorcery and leading child to...Satan (facepalm)

imagine for a moment in book 5 the presence a chapter on dumbledore love story with grindelwald (they totally were a couple...based on canon of book 7)...could you imagine the magnitude of the scandal? magic book makes children satanic gay... it would have destroyed the books , at least in certain country...

Werekat

2014-02-06, 07:03 AM

Phobia, all right. First of all, I'm not trying to shut you up. I'm trying to explain that the reason Rowling didn't put that in likely has everything to do with plot reasons, and nothing else. As far as I'm concerned, we're just talking.

As I see it, our argument boils essentially down to your "well, she could've figured something out" and my "yeah, I'm an amateur, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to do that well." So I'm passing the ball to you, if you will have it. How would you have changed the plot? Considering that you need to have an old man, well past fertility age, who wound up alone romantically in the end, whose only conversations with the main characters are on Mentor Stuff (tm), talk to the main character, a teenager and his student, about his sexual preferences? How would you have gone about not making it forced or totally awful?

If Dumbledore were younger or had a lifetime partner, sure - have him show up with his partner, and that's that. But he's the quintessential mentor who goes to die alone, having a partner changes that role. Hagrid and Lupin are at least of fertile age, they've got a reason to look out for someone. Dumbledore's at the age where if you haven't found someone, you're not likely to.

Slander? Yeah, but the reporters have nothing on this guy, he's the most powerful wizard of his generation, and what they can track, he can confuse. The only thing the reporters have on him is stuff when he was young, we're missing whole swathes of his life. You can have a rumor that he was gay, but where are you going to get confirmation?

He's intensely private: this is the man that fooled the Aurors into thinking he was a complacent old man, then gave them the bird and walked out through the use of raw power. This is the man who says he sees himself with socks in the Mirror of Erised. He's a liar and a manipulator, a very skilled one with good intentions, true, but he's not going to just go and talk about himself, I think.

Seriously, if you've got an idea about how to do it, I'm all ears. Mostly for personal reasons, really.

See, I'd love to have more open LGBT characters in stories, because I enjoy reading about them a ton and exploring gender issues. The stuff I'm personally working on right now has more than a few lesbian and gay characters, even more bisexual ones, and at least one asexual. They're mostly positive role models, but since they make up most of the cast, some of them naturally screw up really badly. Related issues are going to be discussed, because one of the point of view characters is from a very different society, so there's going to be cross-cultural sparks.

But one problem I've run up against is how hard that is to do all that without sounding like a preacher on a Sunday morning, to keep your characters talking because they have reasons to be talking and not because you've got something to tell your audience. To actually have a positive role model you need to have a convincing character first and a role model second. And Dumbledore's really not in a good place for a reveal of his sexuality, not because he's gay, but because of who he is besides being gay. So if you have a good idea on how Rowling could've explored that better which I haven't thought of - I'd really love to hear it.

The Troubadour

2014-02-06, 08:13 AM

It was only selling "poorly" by JKR standards. For a debut novel from a completely unknown author (which is what they were presenting it as) it was doing well above average.

Hm, that directly contradicts what I've read. Ah, don't mind me, I'm just being a grinch. I actually like Rowling's prose quite a bit, and the first four HP books were quite fun, despite all their many issues; I just can't stand them from the fifth onwards.

cobaltstarfire

2014-02-06, 09:06 AM

I dunno, the deal with Dumbledore and that other wizard in the later books came off as pretty homosexual to me. Sure she didn't exactly spell it out, but that's one of the thoughts that passed through my mind in those areas.

Wasn't the whole revelation with him being gay a bit of a matter of fact thing from her as well? Like she was asked about him or something and she just flat out stated that he's gay? It wasn't like she made a big deal about it and came out to say it, it just came up in passing.

I don't think the fact that she didn't spell it out in the books is a bad thing, it'd probably come off as tokenish if she went out of her way to be obvious with it...

Psyren

2014-02-06, 09:15 AM

One wonders why such extraneous detail is bothersome here, but not in, say, Tolkien's work.

This. We're a bit hypocritical in that regard - for one author we scour a footnote he scribbled on a letter to some girl that was found in a rotting trunk under a floorboard in his dorm, while the other voices a vague opinion in an interview and everyone is ready to form a lynch mob.

If I'm not mistaken, that's coming out as a movie, not a novel.

Screenplay, novel, po-tay-toe...

Kitten Champion

2014-02-06, 09:43 AM

I'm just gonna go ahead and be the one to say ...duh?

I'm just gonna go ahead and be the one to say...moustache?

While you might think it's obvious, the early simplistic binary between Gryffindor and Slytherin - with the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw there for flavour - is glamorized in Potter fandom and by the writer. Rather than the formalized method of entrenching a grim divide between ideologies that has been undermining the Wizarding world for generations now, it's usually represented as a cool bit of setting fluff like the Divisions in Bleach.

She obfuscated the issue when she focused on the redemption of Snape and Draco rather than articulating how malignant their division has been -- after two civil wars and untold misery later one would think they'd have the motivation to do some soul-searching and make some reforms.

People forget that Hogwarts was founded in medieval Scotland, and a Medieval Scotland before chivalry was a thing and the average serf was in a very literal sense a slave to a castle owning master. It's rooted in traditions the muggle world wouldn't have practiced for centuries and ideals that were considered abhorrent even into the late medieval period. We're talking about a society that diverged most fully around a time where ideals are so alien compared to our own that the only reason we can understand them is a general trickling in of muggleborns giving things a rough appearance of modern normalcy. Hell, compared to the period it was founded in, the house system is downright progressive since it sorts everyone by personality and drive rather than bloodline or status.

They're in Scotland?

pendell

2014-02-06, 10:39 AM

The Troubadour

2014-02-06, 10:41 AM

This. We're a bit hypocritical in that regard - for one author we scour a footnote he scribbled on a letter to some girl that was found in a rotting trunk under a floorboard in his dorm, while the other voices a vague opinion in an interview and everyone is ready to form a lynch mob.

I think the issue is that Tolkien didn't keep on offering comments about the characters after "The Lord of the Rings" was finished.

It's not like the books from 4 onwards were short by any means.

In my opinion, they could have been a hell of a lot shorter.

Psyren

2014-02-06, 11:02 AM

I think the issue is that Tolkien didn't keep on offering comments about the characters after "The Lord of the Rings" was finished.

He may not have been interviewed directly, but he still had his thoughts, and left them to be found. The point being that I don't see anyone yelling to put those manuscripts and letters to the torch, or board them up in the basement, just because the books are finished.

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-06, 11:06 AM

And he was retconning the backstory of the Orcs pretty much right up until he died...

Starbuck_II

2014-02-06, 12:16 PM

And he was retconning the backstory of the Orcs pretty much right up until he died...

Well, he was getting over his racism and so he realized how he show racism toward a fictional race so he was struggling to keep the fight against the orcs yet not make them inherently evil.

Androgeus

2014-02-06, 12:22 PM

They're in Scotland?

I think the train takes about 6-8 hours to get from Kings Cross to Hogwarts, this pretty much puts means Hogwarts has to be in Scotland somewhere.

pendell

2014-02-06, 01:16 PM

I think the train takes about 6-8 hours to get from Kings Cross to Hogwarts, this pretty much puts means Hogwarts has to be in Scotland somewhere.

But if this is British Rail we're talking about, wouldn't a six to eight hour trip mean a distance of about 20 miles/40km?

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Dienekes

2014-02-06, 01:50 PM

He may not have been interviewed directly, but he still had his thoughts, and left them to be found. The point being that I don't see anyone yelling to put those manuscripts and letters to the torch, or board them up in the basement, just because the books are finished.

Actually, a lot of the details we know about characters lives and motivations beyond the book series come from letters from people asking about them. They asked, and Tolkien wrote his response on the complex lives of his characters and the history of his world.

So, it's basically the exact thing that's happening to Rowling, except without the internet and media exposure so that every one of his letters gets analyzed by everyone even remotely interested.

Coidzor

2014-02-06, 01:57 PM

People forget that Hogwarts was founded in medieval Scotland, and a Medieval Scotland before chivalry was a thing and the average serf was in a very literal sense a slave to a castle owning master.

Are you sure about that? I'm getting Circa 990 A.D. or late 10th century for the founding of Hogwarts. From what I can find, serfdom didn't really get its start on the continent until the 10th century, though its roots in what happened with the late Roman Latifundia go back even further there, though I don't believe they ever really got established all that much in Roman Britain which only extended so far into Scotland anyway. Depending upon where in Scotland it is, exactly, at that point in Scotland's history there were still areas which were living as gaelic celts in much the same manner as they had since before the Romans had an empire, since we're probably ruling out Scandinavian Scotland as Hogwarts does not seem to be near the coast at all, and Scandinavian Scotland would still be kind of a new thing as well.

Granted, back in the day they were probably less likely to take ages and ages to notice what was going on outside of the magical community from what I've been able to gather.

Avilan the Grey

2014-02-06, 04:12 PM

Well, he was getting over his racism and so he realized how he show racism toward a fictional race so he was struggling to keep the fight against the orcs yet not make them inherently evil.

I assume you are joking, right? *Eyeroll*

Jayngfet

2014-02-06, 04:58 PM

I'm just gonna go ahead and be the one to say...moustache?

While you might think it's obvious, the early simplistic binary between Gryffindor and Slytherin - with the Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw there for flavour - is glamorized in Potter fandom and by the writer. Rather than the formalized method of entrenching a grim divide between ideologies that has been undermining the Wizarding world for generations now, it's usually represented as a cool bit of setting fluff like the Divisions in Bleach.

She obfuscated the issue when she focused on the redemption of Snape and Draco rather than articulating how malignant their division has been -- after two civil wars and untold misery later one would think they'd have the motivation to do some soul-searching and make some reforms.

Well the issue there lies with the fandom. I can buy the actual character being ok with it, if only because they don't exactly have much experience with anything else and the HP books were never under normal circumstances. Slytherin wasn't just a normal house, it was co-opted by the Death Eaters and their kids, and Snape was basically forced to play along even when he didn't buy into it. Gryffindor was lionized as the house of several notable professors and Alumni, and with the prestige of having Harry Potter and a string of victories through the books naturally got a much more noble image than it might have otherwise.

Even in a couple of generations the dynamic would totally change even without reform. For all we know some Ravenclaws are going to have experiments go totally wrong and then they're the bad guys. Or else Hufflepuff takes Cerdic's death really badly and the professors and seniors push the house really hard until they're the ones taking every house cup and quidditch game. Or maybe a bunch of werewolves and goblin-bloods and partially monstrous wizards like Fleur get interpreted as brave and Gryffindor becomes "the house for freaks".

The problem was never some inherent issue with Slytherin itself, so much as the fact that it's where Voldemort made his original plans and everything we saw was tinted by that. The other eight hundred years were presumably a bit less dangerous.

They're in Scotland?

All the material says so.

Are you sure about that? I'm getting Circa 990 A.D. or late 10th century for the founding of Hogwarts. From what I can find, serfdom didn't really get its start on the continent until the 10th century, though its roots in what happened with the late Roman Latifundia go back even further there, though I don't believe they ever really got established all that much in Roman Britain which only extended so far into Scotland anyway. Depending upon where in Scotland it is, exactly, at that point in Scotland's history there were still areas which were living as gaelic celts in much the same manner as they had since before the Romans had an empire, since we're probably ruling out Scandinavian Scotland as Hogwarts does not seem to be near the coast at all, and Scandinavian Scotland would still be kind of a new thing as well.

Granted, back in the day they were probably less likely to take ages and ages to notice what was going on outside of the magical community from what I've been able to gather.

I may have my dates a bit off. I haven't done anything intensive on Scotland in years and those dates are slightly earlier than what the books I own usually cover. I might be off by anywhere between a couple hundred years and a few generations.

In any case there's still wiggle room, since unless I misremember the companion books I don't recall the wizarding world really splitting off definitively at that point. Broomstick development and other transportation wasn't advanced enough to make it viable and what little we know from the Quidditch book makes it obvious that there weren't huge modern style meetups very frequently so much as very small communities.

But again, there's so much blank space that you could have literally any number of events happen or any number of systems influencing it. There are some educated guesses we can probably make, but there are things we just plain know nothing about and so many questions that will inevitably pop up.

Rosstin

2014-02-06, 11:00 PM

Meh. I never particularly liked Ginny. Ever. There just wasn't much development to her as a character.

Of course I never particularly liked Harry or Ron either. "You get to learn how to rewrite reality to your will, and you don't pay attention in class?! What's wrong with you?"

I had the same thoughts in a similar thread a week ago.

I like Harry Potter quite a bit, simply for being a well-written, popular, fun book about magic that created a shared culture phenomenon that I approve of.

But I feel like I was never really deep enough inside any of the characters' heads to "believe" their romances. Not saying they couldn't happen, but I just didn't get a lot of emotional investment or sense of rightness in any particular pairing. The characters never seemed emotionally mature enough to become life partners.

I like to just assume that they all had some kind of meaningful relationship-building off-screen between the end and the epilogue.

Jayngfet

2014-02-07, 01:33 AM

I had the same thoughts in a similar thread a week ago.

I like Harry Potter quite a bit, simply for being a well-written, popular, fun book about magic that created a shared culture phenomenon that I approve of.

But I feel like I was never really deep enough inside any of the characters' heads to "believe" their romances. Not saying they couldn't happen, but I just didn't get a lot of emotional investment or sense of rightness in any particular pairing. The characters never seemed emotionally mature enough to become life partners.

I like to just assume that they all had some kind of meaningful relationship-building off-screen between the end and the epilogue.

Honestly that's what let me buy every romance except the endgame ones. Their romances weren't particularly deep because they're a bunch of kids mostly acting on school crushes and don't have much freedom to actually go out and do things.

The only problem is I didn't buy Ron/Hermionie since it was something that felt obviously phoned in. They don't dwell on it enough for it to make sense so much as "of course the two secondaries pair off, it's nice and convenient". Likewise, Ginny is a decent character on her own, but she had zero chemistry with Harry.

Philistine

2014-02-07, 01:44 AM

Shipping is the "crowd sourcing" or "cloud computing" of writing in a way, let me explain:

The author may create the world but no singular human mind will be able to treat every member of a big cast with the same care and attention as he/she does with the main character and simulate all their reactions.

Plus there is the fact that you can't devote all your time to writing romance so odds are you're going to have lots and lots of characters with no explicit romantic plot.

Here come in the fanfic authors who mostly idenitfy with certain characters and thus can emulate their thought process better than the authors, because they can 100% into that one character and the feel they can channel they RL experience into them, thus it will be far easier for a fanfic author to find a match for let's say Pansy Parkingson than Rowling.

That's because there's probably a lot of female slytherin fans who have a better synergy with P.P (and thus care about writing her a romance after Draco even tough canon ends with her being dumped by Draco ) in contrast to J.K who has the best synergy with a female Gryffindor namely Hermione.

ZOMG, I've never heard of such a thing as that before!

While that's fine as far as it goes, the problem is that it doesn't go nearly far enough. That is to say, your explanation may indeed be sufficient for those fanfics which simply invent material in areas not touched on by the original author, but it fails to address those fanfics in which the fan authors' invented material flatly contradicts the source text. Less "the Further Adventures of Pansy Parkinson" and more the horrifying flood of "Draco in Leather Pants" and "Ron the Death Eater" fic that runs rampant in HP fandom - the fics where you look at the fanfic, then over at the books, then back to the fic, then ask the author, "Okay, what story did you read? Because I can't see how you possibly could have gotten here, starting from what's in there."

Math_Mage

2014-02-07, 02:34 AM

Rodin

2014-02-07, 04:08 AM

I found it strange that *all* the staff in Hogwarts seemed to be asexual. We have one known gay character -- do the other professors have wives? Husbands? Kids? Families? Professor Mcgonnagle is Mrs. Mcgonnagle -- presumably there is a Mr. Mcgonnagle? Where is he? Is he muggle or wizard? Is SHE pureblood or muggleborn?

I presumably most of the staff were pushed firmly into the background because, gay or straight or transvestite, their sexuality was not important to the story, and adding these details would have complicated the task of writing considerably. It's not like the books from 4 onwards were short by any means.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Also, the story is written from the point of view of teenage students.

I couldn't have told you the marital status of virtually any of my teachers in Middle/High school. A few of the female teachers went on maternity leave, but other than that it just wasn't a topic that came up.

There were plenty of student/student romances going on, but imagining what your teachers were up to...brrrr. This is particularly true in Harry Potter where pretty much all the teachers are middle-age or older (including dead, in one case).

Manga Shoggoth

2014-02-07, 08:56 AM

Also, the story is written from the point of view of teenage students.

More than that - the story is primarally written around Harry himself. This is why there is not only minimal information about parings, but minimal information about Hogwarts, other houses and the wizarding world in general beyond what Harry himself experiences.

GolemsVoice

2014-02-07, 09:10 AM

But one problem I've run up against is how hard that is to do all that without sounding like a preacher on a Sunday morning, to keep your characters talking because they have reasons to be talking and not because you've got something to tell your audience. To actually have a positive role model you need to have a convincing character first and a role model second. And Dumbledore's really not in a good place for a reveal of his sexuality, not because he's gay, but because of who he is besides being gay. So if you have a good idea on how Rowling could've explored that better which I haven't thought of - I'd really love to hear it.

Eh, they COULD just mention another man in his life. We get plenty of flashbacks, and once, we literally dive into his memories. There could have been a male partner present.

That being said, I don't mind that there isn't, but the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry goes beyond merely teacher - student.

Why we never explore the sexuality of other teachers is more easily explained, I'd say. This is very much a British boarding school, and without being an expert, I'd say that a lot of traditions and manners in Hogwarts date back to at least the Victorian age, if not even medieval times, including the cavalier attitude to punishments. Not discussing sexuality seems to be in line with the general behaviour of a school stuck in those times.

Werekat

2014-02-07, 10:06 AM

Eh, they COULD just mention another man in his life. We get plenty of flashbacks, and once, we literally dive into his memories. There could have been a male partner present.

Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the Pensieve, good call! I don't really remember what they were looking at, though; and they were all memories Dumbledore wanted other people to see, anyway (I think? That was book six, right?).

Psyren

2014-02-07, 11:35 AM

The only memories in the Pensieve are the ones you put in it, just like Snape hid his most embarrassing ones there during Occlumency training. I can understand Dumbledore leaving out his Grindelwald sexytimes while showing Harry what he needed to see.

Actually, a lot of the details we know about characters lives and motivations beyond the book series come from letters from people asking about them. They asked, and Tolkien wrote his response on the complex lives of his characters and the history of his world.

So, it's basically the exact thing that's happening to Rowling, except without the internet and media exposure so that every one of his letters gets analyzed by everyone even remotely interested.

Even better!

Starbuck_II

2014-02-07, 12:17 PM

Also, the story is written from the point of view of teenage students.

I couldn't have told you the marital status of virtually any of my teachers in Middle/High school. A few of the female teachers went on maternity leave, but other than that it just wasn't a topic that came up.

I could. Most of us in Miss (I can't recall her name at moment) totally shipped her with our Science teacher Mr. Cotton in Middle School. Their body language and their closeness made us all think something should if it wasn't going on. But that was back in 2000's when I was in middle school.

Rosstin

2014-02-07, 02:45 PM

I second the teacher thing. I don't usually ponder my teachers' private/sexual lives. Not saying that there aren't schools or students where the kids would, just that it isn't unrealistic that it doesn't come up.

Werekat

2014-02-07, 02:51 PM

A couple of friends looking over my shoulders just said that the best hint about Dumbledore's preferences was hiring Lockhart. :D

GolemsVoice

2014-02-07, 05:48 PM

Given the penchant for hiring teachers that are in one way or the other total outlandish and/or incompetent at their chosen subject, Gilderoy is just one flavour of the general madness.

Werekat

2014-02-07, 06:03 PM

Naturally that's the real reason, but I thought the conjecture was fun enough to share. It still has me giggling: "If I have to hire incompetent teachers, I can at least hire a pretty one!"

GolemsVoice

2014-02-07, 06:12 PM

That's a fairly good reason, anyway. I wonder how the initial talks went for the applicants?

"So you want to work as a teacher for Defense against the Dark Arts? Tell us a little about yourself, please."

"I have once eaten an entire student for talking in class!"

"Excellent, you're hired!"

Phobia

2014-02-07, 06:13 PM

the harry potter series was criticized by christians (and muslims?) group for... praising sorcery and leading child to...Satan (facepalm)

imagine for a moment in book 5 the presence a chapter on dumbledore love story with grindelwald (they totally were a couple...based on canon of book 7)...could you imagine the magnitude of the scandal? magic book makes children satanic gay... it would have destroyed the books , at least in certain country...

And that didn't stop them from keeping magic in much, did it? Listen, the truth is that the people like that are a huge fringe of society and no one really took that seriously. Absolutely no reason to deny our youth of one of the most well-liked, prominent, and respected homosexual characters of our time. What a missed opportunity. :smallmad:

As I see it, our argument boils essentially down to your "well, she could've figured something out" and my "yeah, I'm an amateur, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to do that well." So I'm passing the ball to you, if you will have it. How would you have changed the plot? Considering that you need to have an old man, well past fertility age, who wound up alone romantically in the end, whose only conversations with the main characters are on Mentor Stuff (tm), talk to the main character, a teenager and his student, about his sexual preferences? How would you have gone about not making it forced or totally awful?

You remember how they did Snapes love story? A little mini-story in the book that established him in his truest, non-mentor form that we were used to and that really made him look vulnerable about a romance that ruined his life? Yeah, kinda of like that. Where could we put it tho? Hmm.. oh! Man! There's already a huge flashback part all about Dumbledoore... where they strip away him being the all-knowing mentor... make him look vulnerable... about a romance that ruined his life? Nope, that last part was omitted. It would have been great to have both a straight and a gay telling of a romance that ruined their life. Maybe that's what made Dumbledoore like and trust Snape so much? Maybe they could have built on that- forlorn love bonding the two very different characters, with Dumbledoore seeing something of himself in the other man.

Sure, still kill his sister, still have his brother hate him, but make it specifically because he was hopelessly in love with Grindelwald not because of... uh... he was evil for a little while and felt bad about it afterward? I dunno, what reason does the book give?

The point about the slander is that they could have at least mentioned the possibly that he was gay. The word gay. At all. In the text. XD And they had the whole story about his sister and Grindelwald... why couldn't they get "the rest" of the story (gay parts).

Snape didn't talk about himself either. We still learned his whole backstory.

Werekat

2014-02-07, 06:23 PM

Phobia, showing it in a flashback's a good option, actually. I do think I have to reread the thing before I can continue the conversation on memories in detail, though. :( I for the life of me can't remember what exactly the flashbacks were about, and so I can't analyze them. I don't have my books on me, either. Were they in the Pensieve? Or did Dumbledore show them to Harry some other way?

Snape's story was great, but the reason she was able to do it is because he's a lot closer to Harry. He hates Harry, he's in direct conflict with the protagonist, the issue needs closure. Dumbledore's story is different.

If she just mentioned the word "gay," she'd have had to given it closure in the text itself, I think. The biggest problem with that is that the slander thing happened after he died, and she obviously couldn't have used afterlife time for that issue.

Phobia

2014-02-07, 06:32 PM

I don't remember either. I feel like it was the Pensieve, but don't take my word for it.

Yeah, I mostly just wanted some explict mention in the text. It's not like they have to devote a lot to it. Just like one line in the flashback- he followed Grindelwald because he put his heart before his head. Or he let his emotions cloud his judgement because he was deeply in love with the dark wizard. And from that moment on he never let himself fall in love again. They didn't even have to say gay really, I would have just preferred, but if you don't mention the word gay just act like it wouldn't no big thing that some guy loved another guy and was driven to do bad stuff because of it. It's a classic story type, just usually with a girl. Heck, it's almost Snape's story, except Snape is driven to do bad stuff for someone else to get the girl. Love makes you crazy.

Traab

2014-02-07, 06:51 PM

Jayngfet

2014-02-07, 07:37 PM

And that didn't stop them from keeping magic in much, did it? Listen, the truth is that the people like that are a huge fringe of society and no one really took that seriously. Absolutely no reason to deny our youth of one of the most well-liked, prominent, and respected homosexual characters of our time. What a missed opportunity. :smallmad:

You remember how they did Snapes love story? A little mini-story in the book that established him in his truest, non-mentor form that we were used to and that really made him look vulnerable about a romance that ruined his life? Yeah, kinda of like that. Where could we put it tho? Hmm.. oh! Man! There's already a huge flashback part all about Dumbledoore... where they strip away him being the all-knowing mentor... make him look vulnerable... about a romance that ruined his life? Nope, that last part was omitted. It would have been great to have both a straight and a gay telling of a romance that ruined their life. Maybe that's what made Dumbledoore like and trust Snape so much? Maybe they could have built on that- forlorn love bonding the two very different characters, with Dumbledoore seeing something of himself in the other man.

Sure, still kill his sister, still have his brother hate him, but make it specifically because he was hopelessly in love with Grindelwald not because of... uh... he was evil for a little while and felt bad about it afterward? I dunno, what reason does the book give?

The point about the slander is that they could have at least mentioned the possibly that he was gay. The word gay. At all. In the text. XD And they had the whole story about his sister and Grindelwald... why couldn't they get "the rest" of the story (gay parts).

Snape didn't talk about himself either. We still learned his whole backstory.

Personally I think adding more romance to the flashback would have kinda overcomplicated it. The books were already many times their original length by that point and adding that much more would have just weighed down a series that may have been better with a bit of pruning, in all honesty. The entire thing with Grindlewald worked not because of any specific dynamic he had with Dumbledore, but because of the fact that Harry doesn't see the dynamic. We get a number of flashes of insight and some sparse details, but outside of those it's a story that takes place outside Harry's frame of reference. It's not like Snape, who's backstory is tied closely to both Voldemort and Harry, it's this entirely different thing.

It shows that the world is bigger than this one problem. There've been issues with dark wizards before and there probably will be later. It sells the setting in a way that's totally different from Snape's backstory, or the Quidditch tournament, or a number of things. Harry doesn't find out about Dumbledore because it's not his concern and it's not relevant to the events at hand.

If we got a prequel series about Dumbledore I'd be all for it, but it'd need to be it's own entity.

Phobia

2014-02-07, 07:48 PM

I'd be all for it too.

It doesn't have to be connected to Harry to have a romance element! It's a pervailing theme in all fiction of everything ever- it would show that more than just here and now there are dark wizards taking away peoples loved ones and people falling in love and people learning that the one they love will never love them back and so on! It's deeply connected to the elements found in the other parts of the story at least thematically. It's relevent to the events at hand because it shows us that this cycle of things happens over and over again whether its Voldemort or Grindelwald or whatever. Snape could have been the new Dumbledoore someday if he hadn't died they had such a similar backstory. People would have forgotten his tenuous connection to the dark lord just like they forgot Dumbledoore's tenuous connection to a dark lord.

Why would they even have it if it wasn't meant to evoke similarities and show us more about the man we thought we knew was Dumbledoore? And that's all I'm saying to do- show us more about that man!

Now that it's already in print it's strictly in the 'close buddies' realm and anything else is fanfiction- even if the author herself said it. There are tons of really close guy friends that people like to say were gay but it's all just fan speculation! And thats all we'll ever get about Dumbledoore! Speculation! When he could have been the next.. well... Northstar!

Even Gene Roddenberry said that Kirk and Spock could have been in a gay relationship sometimes or may have been closer than friends, etc, but that too is meaningless because it was never shown.

When a book comes out people don't care how long it is! They never want it to end! Or thats me at least.

Hiro Protagonest

2014-02-07, 08:05 PM

Um, I am not going to comment on whether making children aware of homosexuality as a thing that exists, but I know I would've been uncomfortable with Dumbledore and Grindelwald being lovers at the age I first read all the way through the books.

Jayngfet

2014-02-07, 09:16 PM

When a book comes out people don't care how long it is! They never want it to end! Or thats me at least.

No offense, but I have very limited shelf space and a whole lot of books vying for room on it. I just had to get rid of two thirds of my books and they're still stacked on basically every available surface. Out of sheer practical concern I can't just pick up a nine hundred page work of fiction whenever I feel like it, simply because every time I need to move, which I expect to need to reasonably often in the future, I already need to lug around twice my weight in books even after giving out the unimportant ones, and I've never been a tiny person. I imagine a lot of people who do a lot of reading are like that, though not quite as extreme.

Goblet of Fire is my favorite book and I can read it cover to cover in one go without stopping repeatedly, but it's more or less the only one I still both physically own and can keep track of in the stacks.

Socratov

2014-02-08, 07:17 AM

No offense, but I have very limited shelf space and a whole lot of books vying for room on it. I just had to get rid of two thirds of my books and they're still stacked on basically every available surface. Out of sheer practical concern I can't just pick up a nine hundred page work of fiction whenever I feel like it, simply because every time I need to move, which I expect to need to reasonably often in the future, I already need to lug around twice my weight in books even after giving out the unimportant ones, and I've never been a tiny person. I imagine a lot of people who do a lot of reading are like that, though not quite as extreme.

Goblet of Fire is my favorite book and I can read it cover to cover in one go without stopping repeatedly, but it's more or less the only one I still both physically own and can keep track of in the stacks.

You know, that is exactly the reason I switrched to e-books. Now I can take thousands of books with me on just a harddisk. And to top it off, i can take them anywhere I want with virtually no added weight whatsoever.

Jayngfet

2014-02-08, 02:07 PM

You know, that is exactly the reason I switrched to e-books. Now I can take thousands of books with me on just a harddisk. And to top it off, i can take them anywhere I want with virtually no added weight whatsoever.

eBooks just don't feel right to me. There's not much that can beat the feeling of physically holding the paper and turning the page.

Socratov

2014-02-08, 02:37 PM

eBooks just don't feel right to me. There's not much that can beat the feeling of physically holding the paper and turning the page.

While I indeed miss that, I don't miss the money I save (e-books are cheaper), nor the weight I need to lug around compared to e-books. To me the advantages match up more then enough to the downsides that I'll choose e-books anytime.

Jayngfet

2014-02-08, 03:00 PM

While I indeed miss that, I don't miss the money I save (e-books are cheaper), nor the weight I need to lug around compared to e-books. To me the advantages match up more then enough to the downsides that I'll choose e-books anytime.

Hey, don't get me wrong I'll take both, but I'm lucky enough to have a good library close by right now, so there's that.

Not to mention that most of the books I have physical copies by now of are reasonably old and obscure things on various historical period I'd need to spend a whole lot of time trying to hunt down.

Nekura

2014-02-09, 01:04 AM

Has anyone seen the full interview? None of the quotes I've seen from Rowling actually state that Hermione should have ended up with Harry, just that it shouldn't have been Ron; everything else could be editorializing.

Wishful thinking, probably. :smallsigh: Because everyone has to get paired up with someone, especially if they're female.

Some quotes about Harry/Hermione working betterRowling:
In some ways Hermione and Harry are a better fit, and I’ll tell you something very strange. When I wrote Hallows, I felt this quite strongly when I had Hermione and Harry together in the tent! I hadn’t told [Steven] Kloves that and when he wrote the script he felt exactly the same thing at exactly the same point.

Rowling:
That is just it, you are so right. All this says something very powerful about the character of Hermione as well. Hermione was the one that stuck with Harry all the way through that last installment, that very last part of the adventure. It wasn’t Ron, which also says something very powerful about Ron. He was injured in a way, in his self-esteem, from the start of the series. He always knew he came second to fourth best, and then he had to make friends with the hero of it all and that’s a hell of a position to be in, eternally overshadowed. So Ron had to act out in that way at some point.
But Hermione’s always there for Harry. I remember you sent me a note after you read Hallows and before you starting shooting, and said something about that, because it was Hermione’s journey as much as Harry’s at the end.

Between that and Rowling saying
What I will say is that I wrote the Hermione/Ron relationship as a form of wish fulfillment. That’s how it was conceived, really. For reasons that have very little to do with literature and far more to do with me clinging to the plot as I first imagined it, Hermione with Ron.

She basically confirms what a lot of fans who disliked the Harry/Ginny or Ron/Hermione pairings have been saying. That instead of letting the characters develop naturally and practically write themselves like you hear a lot of authors talk about she instead forced them in another direction. That she was so set on getting the One Big Happy Weasley Family she didn’t care if it made sense from a literary standpoint or if it felt more natural to her writing them another way, she was desperately clinging to pair Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny.

Legato Endless

2014-02-09, 01:27 AM

I am not so certain Nekura.

Perhaps not complete but certainly fuller (http://popdust.com/2014/02/07/jk-rowling-emma-watson-full-interview-text-wonderland-march-2014/)

This is pretty shoddy journalism. The interview omits some crucial context. I was wondering about this, especially given how savvy Rowling normally is. The marketing for Book 1 was a wonder in itself.

No, looking over everything, its really not quite the victory for certain ships that the initial release made it out to be. Rowling is being fairly philosophical, and her ending conclusion comes off as a heady endorsement for a character she based heavily off herself. The only real indictment I see, is Rowling going as far as we will ever likely see to admitting to the lack of final crowning contribution to the finale for Ron. Even the author gives Ron short shrift of the trio. Rowling really doesn't believe in competitive balance in any sense of the term. :smalltongue:

Nekura

2014-02-09, 02:15 AM

Yeah if you click the OP link that story has a link to the “full” interview which I read. Your link is just a basic summary of that nothing new.

Psyren

2014-02-09, 04:56 AM

You know, that is exactly the reason I switrched to e-books. Now I can take thousands of books with me on just a harddisk. And to top it off, i can take them anywhere I want with virtually no added weight whatsoever.

Not only that, but ctrl+f through my Game of Thrones collection has settled a lot of arguments.

Eldariel

2014-02-09, 09:19 AM

I could. Most of us in Miss (I can't recall her name at moment) totally shipped her with our Science teacher Mr. Cotton in Middle School. Their body language and their closeness made us all think something should if it wasn't going on. But that was back in 2000's when I was in middle school.

I've had my elementary school students tell me I should be dating a certain school assistant. It certainly happens.

pendell

2014-02-09, 09:51 AM

I've had my elementary school students tell me I should be dating a certain school assistant. It certainly happens.

And did you? :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, it's something I've never understood, how even small six-year-olds turn into little matchmakers. *Cues up Fiddler on the Roof's "Matchmaker" song*

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Eldariel

2014-02-09, 01:45 PM

And did you? :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, it's something I've never understood, how even small six-year-olds turn into little matchmakers. *Cues up Fiddler on the Roof's "Matchmaker" song*

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Heh, no, not quite. She was quite a bit younger plus we had precious little in common aside from employment. Nice girl and all and we got along quite well but I don't think there is anything there to be more than friends. As it turns out, while they seem to have taken to pairing up people (from what I heard from the other teachers there, some class in the school always comes up with one pair a year in the staff), 7-year olds aren't quite experts yet :smalltongue:

Socratov

2014-02-09, 01:55 PM

Not only that, but ctrl+f through my Game of Thrones collection has settled a lot of arguments.

That's equally true for study books, there ctrl-f is glorious.

Jayngfet

2014-02-09, 02:57 PM

That's equally true for study books, there ctrl-f is glorious.

Books generally have things called bibliographies.

They're a bit slower but I've found the text I needed to within minutes by using them.

Socratov

2014-02-09, 03:56 PM

Books generally have things called bibliographies.

They're a bit slower but I've found the text I needed to within minutes by using them.

which works well if your study book actually has it and records each mention dutifully. I have had instances where ctrl-f has saved my bacon because in a paragraph not mentioned in the bibliography an important detail is explained.

bibliographies are nice and all, but 99% of the time incomplete.

Psyren

2014-02-09, 04:31 PM

Books generally have things called bibliographies.

They're a bit slower but I've found the text I needed to within minutes by using them.

I think you meant textbooks there, since novels generally don't have indices, bibliographies etc. And even when they do, as Socratov mentioned they're seldom complete.

Sotharsyl

2014-02-10, 10:19 AM

Another reason why J.K. might not have wanted to draw attention to Dumbledore's orientation was that his love interest was the previous Dark Lord, not a very healthy relationship undoubtedly.

I could see them discussing their relationship going quite badly:

Dumbledore: "Gelbert, I need to tell you something."
Grindelwald: "Sure I'm listening."
Dumbledore: "I like you."
Grindelwald: "Thanks mate, best friends forever and all that."
Dumbledore: "No, I like you."
Grindelwald: "Oh, well ... I like you like a friend because otherwise you know I'm all about the ladies, look when we're ruling the world, I can have my female harem, you your male harem ok?"
Dumbledore: "Yeah uhhm if we're clearing the air, this whole 'take over the world for the greater good' thing I'm not sure my heart is in it any more."
Grindelwald: "Oh yeah ?! Really, you find out I'm not going to jump in the sack with you and coincidently you're not interested in my work! I should have expected this from you 'nice guy' Dumbledore."
Dumbledore: "I'll just go now."
Grindelwald: "I'll bet nice guys like you don't have time to waste with evil people like me and you've got the mother of all wizard blog post to write up at home in which you call me the Dark Lord."

huttj509

2014-02-10, 04:00 PM

Another reason why J.K. might not have wanted to draw attention to Dumbledore's orientation was that his love interest was the previous Dark Lord, not a very healthy relationship undoubtedly.

It did not seem to me to be unreciprocated. But then, I'm one of those folks who thinks there were romantic overtones in the text about their relationship, and thus was not surprised at the information.

Traab

2014-02-10, 06:54 PM

It did not seem to me to be unreciprocated. But then, I'm one of those folks who thinks there were romantic overtones in the text about their relationship, and thus was not surprised at the information.

Also, they broke up long before he went full dark lord. Like still in the talking about the way things should be, early.

Avilan the Grey

2014-02-11, 02:54 AM

Dark Lords are so predictable. Doesn't anyone read the EOL?

If you really follow it to the letter you are basically turning into Hank Scorpio. And your people would be fiercly loyal to you.

Hawriel

2014-02-11, 04:51 AM

Frankly, I find the fact that basically everyone ended up with their crush or buddy from back when they were eleven years old speaks to a staggeringly small amount of meaningful character development, but whatevz. Most of the time, I just pretend the epilogue doesn't exist.

In any case, I can sort of see JKR's point - she wrote in the idea of Ron and Hermione ending up together from the beginning, and then spent a decade having these characters grow into their own people (well, sort of - see the above comment about a lack of meaningful character development), and in retrospect is not sure that she should have stuck to the idea just because it fit with what she first put together. Then again, that doesn't mean that it's an either/or choice. I think it's kind of gross that Hermione's only two options in the end are to serve as a reward for one of the two main male characters (hurray! the dragon is slain and you get to keep the princess!), and that if she didn't end up in some perfectly happy marriage with one, she would have inevitably ended up with the other.

You really need to stop, or at least take a very long brake, from watching Anita Sarceesian's videos.

By narrow mind idly calling Hermoine a reward for Ron, you have ignored her as an individual character with her own will and importance. Can you not consider that the relationship was developed by the both of them? Can you not consider that Ron is just as much a reword to Hermoine as she is to him?

The reward being both of them found some one they could possibly spend the rest of their lives with. A relationship based on friendship, understanding, and trust. That each of them know exactly what the other is capable of when tragedy happens.

I think the fact that Ron, a supporting character, was the one who developed a romantic relation ship is one of the few good things in the story. Granted I'v only seen half the movies. While some of it was clever, I was not over all impressed.

Ron is from a stable loving family. Ron will become a stable family man. Would that not be a very attractive quality for Hermoine? It sure looks a lot better than Harry.

Psyren

2014-02-11, 10:17 AM

I could see them discussing their relationship going quite badly:

Dumbledore: "Gelbert, I need to tell you something."
Grindelwald: "Sure I'm listening."
Dumbledore: "I like you."
Grindelwald: "Thanks mate, best friends forever and all that."
Dumbledore: "No, I like you."
Grindelwald: "Oh, well ... I like you like a friend because otherwise you know I'm all about the ladies, look when we're ruling the world, I can have my female harem, you your male harem ok?"
Dumbledore: "Yeah uhhm if we're clearing the air, this whole 'take over the world for the greater good' thing I'm not sure my heart is in it any more."
Grindelwald: "Oh yeah ?! Really, you find out I'm not going to jump in the sack with you and coincidently you're not interested in my work! I should have expected this from you 'nice guy' Dumbledore."
Dumbledore: "I'll just go now."
Grindelwald: "I'll bet nice guys like you don't have time to waste with evil people like me and you've got the mother of all wizard blog post to write up at home in which you call me the Dark Lord."

Pretty sure it wasn't like this at all, rather it was Grindelwald knowing about Albus' feelings and using them to manipulate him so that he could help him acquire the EW. And Dumbledore slowly realizing he had been used, and further slowly resigning himself to the fact that he was the only one skilled enough to take GG down and remove the EW from his possession.

Socratov

2014-02-12, 03:36 AM

Pretty sure it wasn't like this at all, rather it was Grindelwald knowing about Albus' feelings and using them to manipulate him so that he could help him acquire the EW. And Dumbledore slowly realizing he had been used, and further slowly resigning himself to the fact that he was the only one skilled enough to take GG down and remove the EW from his possession.

Speaking of which, it kind of freaks me out thinking about Dumbledore having an equivalent of a nuke (EW being said to be an unbeatable wand) and haven been the last to engage in a duel before abolishing duels altogether...

Phobia

2014-02-12, 12:03 PM

Harry should have kept the Elder Wand. No dark wizard would be safe. Unstoppable Expelliarmus forever!

pendell

2014-02-12, 06:36 PM

Harry should have kept the Elder Wand. No dark wizard would be safe. Unstoppable Expelliarmus forever!

Until a dark wizard cuts Harry's throat in his sleep, that is.

That is why the elder wand is a trap -- my understanding is that pretty much every wielder died unless they were intelligent enough like Harry or Dumbledore to get rid of the thing. Because it attracts every wannabe power-seeker from throughout the wizarding world like moths to a flame. And while the elder wand guarantees you would win if a dark wizard was foolish enough to stand in front of you and point his wand at you, it does nothing against massed wands from multiple directions, or poison, or knives, or being run down by a muggle truck, or any a master thief who steals the wand in the night.

Respectfully,

Brian p.

mikeejimbo

2014-02-12, 06:51 PM

I could see them discussing their relationship going quite badly:

Dumbledore: "Gelbert, I need to tell you something."
Grindelwald: "Sure I'm listening."
Dumbledore: "I like you."
Grindelwald: "Thanks mate, best friends forever and all that."
Dumbledore: "No, I like you."
Grindelwald: "Oh, well ... I like you like a friend because otherwise you know I'm all about the ladies, look when we're ruling the world, I can have my female harem, you your male harem ok?"
Dumbledore: "Yeah uhhm if we're clearing the air, this whole 'take over the world for the greater good' thing I'm not sure my heart is in it any more."
Grindelwald: "Oh yeah ?! Really, you find out I'm not going to jump in the sack with you and coincidently you're not interested in my work! I should have expected this from you 'nice guy' Dumbledore."
Dumbledore: "I'll just go now."
Grindelwald: "I'll bet nice guys like you don't have time to waste with evil people like me and you've got the mother of all wizard blog post to write up at home in which you call me the Dark Lord."

That was hilarious. I would love to see this exchange acted out.

No seriously, I literally laughed out loud. And not figuratively literally, the way kids these days use it. I actually laughed in real life.

Gnoman

2014-02-12, 06:55 PM

Until a dark wizard cuts Harry's throat in his sleep, that is.

That is why the elder wand is a trap -- my understanding is that pretty much every wielder died unless they were intelligent enough like Harry or Dumbledore to get rid of the thing. Because it attracts every wannabe power-seeker from throughout the wizarding world like moths to a flame. And while the elder wand guarantees you would win if a dark wizard was foolish enough to stand in front of you and point his wand at you, it does nothing against massed wands from multiple directions, or poison, or knives, or being run down by a muggle truck, or any a master thief who steals the wand in the night.

Respectfully,

Brian p.

The thing is, of the wielders of the Elder Wand that we know of, only two lost it because someone went after it. The brother in the fairy tale lost it to murder, and it was stolen from a wandmaker. Note that in both cases, the loser bragged about having it. The former was showing of his power, and the latter was insinuating that, as he had the Wand, he was duplicating the power of the Deathstick for his own product line. The other three lost possession in ways completely incidental to the thing. Dumbledore took it from Grindlewald in battle, but the battle was fought to bring down the Evil Overlord, not to take his maguffin. Dumbledore lost it to Malfoy, who was trying to kill Dumbledore to save his own skin from Voldemort. Malfoy, of course, lost it to Harry without either even knowing about it.

That said, I always thought that Dumbledore's (and later Harry's) plan to die with the wand unlost was extremely optimistic. Dumbledore, of course, lost it before he died (although he had already adjusted his plan in an attempt to send it where he wanted it), and the evidence suggests that Harry will not have that peaceful a life. If Draco lost it because Harry ripped a completely different wand out of his hand, it is unlikely that Harry wouldn't lose it the same way. Don't know how the wand would eventually link back up with the current owner, but there'd be one.

Qwertystop

2014-02-12, 07:03 PM

If Draco lost it because Harry ripped a completely different wand out of his hand, it is unlikely that Harry wouldn't lose it the same way. Don't know how the wand would eventually link back up with the current owner, but there'd be one.

Yeah, that felt stupid to me. On the other hand, if someone gets it without knowing they got it, it might not magically get back to them. And then they either die undefeated or lose it to someone else. Eventually this repetition of people gaining and losing it without anyone ever knowing makes it pretty tricky to figure out who actually owns the thing if anyone did want to hunt it down.

And that's if Harry doesn't set something up like training his kids and their friends in Defense, starting with Expeliarmus because tradition, and eventually one of them honestly gets past his guard (after plenty of training) or jumps him at home (because eleven-year-olds), leaving the wand with some school kid who will of course get into minor scuffles with other school kids that nobody remembers a week later but that will lead to the wand being transferred to who-knows.

Phobia

2014-02-13, 03:01 AM

Voldemort 2.0!

Traab

2014-02-13, 09:30 AM

If the goblins ever stop being green boogers over the whole, breaking and entering thing, harry should drop that wand in his vault, preferably in a whole pile of the things, then go back to using his regular wand. Even if he does lose, the winner wont get the wand, as its locked up. And within a couple generations, the line of who technically owns the death stick will be so muddled due to random disarms and such over the years, that noone will be able to properly claim it again. It will just be another heirloom wand in the potter vaults.

Jerthanis

2014-02-14, 01:55 AM

I can see why Rowling might have regrets over pairing Ron and Hermione. I don't hate Ron, but it always sort of seemed like Harry was kind of the bridge between two people who wouldn't really have any reason to hang out together otherwise. I'm not sure if I'd like Harry and Hermione any better... Harry really did seem to have more in common with Ron.

I would have really liked Ginny, I think, if she had spent more time in front of the 'camera' so to speak. She's practically not in books 3 or 4 at all... she doesn't ever get to convey any information on the aftereffects or mental scars of Voldemort possession, she doesn't offer an opinion on Harry being in the Triwizard Tournament, she doesn't have a robust group of friends... (the only friend she seems to have, Luna, rapidly seems to develop more of a bond with Harry than we ever see between Ginny and Luna). When book 5 rolls around and she's finally in it at ALL again, the things she actually seems to contribute... closing the music box, being able to speak in front of Harry at all, knocking out some cannon-fodder guards when no one is around... they're pretty unimportant, and more importantly, Harry is more distant than ever. Then in book 6, suddenly he's in love with her, but their romance still grows, buds and blossoms with her mostly off-camera, with Harry thinking about her when she's not around, or summarized during timeskips.

I honestly kind of think that Harry wasn't going to have a love interest in the books at all. Maybe the epilogue would have still existed, with him married to Ginny, but would have been just a "Oh, they wound up falling in love later in life, after their adventure and school was past." kind of thing, but when she saw how passionate her fans were about the romance aspect of the books, she tried to put some in there before the end.

If she wanted Ginny to be a sympathetic pairing, she needed to have a presence in books 3 and 4 which continued her arc from where it was left after book 2. She could have been the "Harry" of her own trio of herself, Neville and Luna, and shown getting up to the Harry Trio-esque trouble, or even just someone Harry occasionally talks to about things that matter to him... like... she could have been who he talks to when he learns about the Imperious curse in book 4, talking about maybe a mutual fear of possession or she could have been as badly effected by the Dementors as Harry and been a classmate in Lupin's Patronus tutorship lessons.

I was certain book 6 was going to expand the 'core' group of friends from a trinity to include Ginny, Neville and Luna. After books 4 and 5 had played the main trio off each other so much, I had kind of thought that group dynamic was getting tired enough that it needed some shaking up for further development. But no, Luna sort of became the fourth ranger a little bit, but Neville and Ginny faded back into the background again.

What we have is instead a collection of hearsay exposition of mostly mundane things she does with or to other people that Harry shows no particular interest in. Then Harry is intensely in love with her. Then he ditches her to hang out in a tent with Hermione alone for most of a year. Then she pops up having done more hearsay mundane things with or to other people and Harry shows a token interest before moving along with his own plot.

A shame really, she could have been a good love interest because of what she might have meant to Harry... a big and loving family, growing into being comfortable with his own legendary status, a confidante who has also gone 1v1 with Voldemort as an 11 year old, someone he can share his emotions with who won't brush them off like Ron, and wouldn't try to fix it with books and research like Hermione... but that wasn't who she wound up being. She was strangled by the red ribbon of fate.

Saph

2014-02-14, 06:48 AM

(the only friend she seems to have, Luna, rapidly seems to develop more of a bond with Harry than we ever see between Ginny and Luna).

Yeah, when I was reading the books I noticed the Harry/Luna thing as well. They seemed to strike up a rapport and 'click' in a way that Harry didn't with any of the other girls. I always wondered if it was just me, but reading this thread, apparently not. :smallbiggrin:

Traab

2014-02-14, 08:29 AM

Yeah, when I was reading the books I noticed the Harry/Luna thing as well. They seemed to strike up a rapport and 'click' in a way that Harry didn't with any of the other girls. I always wondered if it was just me, but reading this thread, apparently not. :smallbiggrin:

If you read fanfiction you would know it isnt just you. Harry/Luna is a pairing right up there at the top of the list. From what I can tell its generally hermione, luna, ginny, then random girls from all over.

Sotharsyl

2014-02-14, 12:47 PM

If you read fanfiction you would know it isnt just you. Harry/Luna is a pairing right up there at the top of the list. From what I can tell its generally hermione, luna, ginny, then random girls from all over.

Here's a very complete list (http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4591)of names for most of the pairings in Harry Potter, bah you ship Harmony(Harry/Hermoine) that's so mainstream I'm into Poison Kitty (look it up I dare you).

Imho Harry made a big mistake with how he handled the wand, as other have noted just been connected to it means he'll have dark wizards gunning for him, they're coming for him no matter what he might as well keep the wand and take down as many of them as he can.

You might argue that he did the right thing by stashing it, because even when he dies the assailant won't get the wand except that that plan already involves his death, if Harry's so devoted to keep the wand out of evil's hand why doesn't he take the wand and jump in dark fire.

I know that sounds harsh but as I see it Harry has two options:

his life is important (can't fault him for thinking this) => keeping the wand will improve his chances to survive
making sure the wand never falls into the hands of evil is more important => Harry will sacrifice himself so that no one can take the wand from him.

Again I'm a-ok with him taking the first option but then hiding the wand and not using it is refusing to use a very powerful tool for his objective (to survive).

Qwertystop

2014-02-14, 01:19 PM

Third option: Powerful or not, it's still a stick. Snap it in half. If you think there might be a backlash-y explosion, snap it in half from a distance with a long stick. Or rig something up to fall on it and then run away, if you expect a really big explosion.

Traab

2014-02-14, 03:27 PM

Here's a very complete list (http://forums.fictionalley.org/park/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4591)of names for most of the pairings in Harry Potter, bah you ship Harmony(Harry/Hermoine) that's so mainstream I'm into Poison Kitty (look it up I dare you).

Imho Harry made a big mistake with how he handled the wand, as other have noted just been connected to it means he'll have dark wizards gunning for him, they're coming for him no matter what he might as well keep the wand and take down as many of them as he can.

You might argue that he did the right thing by stashing it, because even when he dies the assailant won't get the wand except that that plan already involves his death, if Harry's so devoted to keep the wand out of evil's hand why doesn't he take the wand and jump in dark fire.

I know that sounds harsh but as I see it Harry has two options:

his life is important (can't fault him for thinking this) => keeping the wand will improve his chances to survive
making sure the wand never falls into the hands of evil is more important => Harry will sacrifice himself so that no one can take the wand from him.

Again I'm a-ok with him taking the first option but then hiding the wand and not using it is refusing to use a very powerful tool for his objective (to survive).

Its not that I ship harry/hermione, I just acknowledge that its probably the most common pairing out of the list. Lunar Harmony is surprisingly popular. Best guess is it appeals to peoples sense of innate balance. Crazy free spirit, logical fact spewer, combined with harry they are awesome.

Sotharsyl

2014-02-14, 04:56 PM

Its not that I ship harry/hermione, I just acknowledge that its probably the most common pairing out of the list. Lunar Harmony is surprisingly popular. Best guess is it appeals to peoples sense of innate balance. Crazy free spirit, logical fact spewer, combined with harry they are awesome.

Just so I'm more clear the "bah you ship X that's so mainstream I ship Y" was just me trying to sound like a hipster :smallbiggrin:

Traab

2014-02-14, 05:22 PM

Just so I'm more clear the "bah you ship X that's so mainstream I ship Y" was just me trying to sound like a hipster :smallbiggrin:

Pfft, trying to sound like a hipster is so mainstream, I was sounding like a hipster to mock hipsters before hipster mocking was popular. Also, on topic, I should mention that my ship list is fairly hetero male/female type arrangements. No yaoi, though yuri being mixed in (hiya silly harems of hilarious silliness!) is ok, so for all I know, the harry/draco ship is 10x as large. Lord knows that type of pairing is eternal, as it transcends all forms of fanfiction source material. Everyone is secretly gay and attracted to their worst same sex enemy. Or really, anyone they dont like in canon.

Coidzor

2014-02-14, 06:52 PM

Its not that I ship harry/hermione, I just acknowledge that its probably the most common pairing out of the list. Lunar Harmony is surprisingly popular. Best guess is it appeals to peoples sense of innate balance. Crazy free spirit, logical fact spewer, combined with harry they are awesome.

Lunar Harmony? I thought triads, or really, anything other than dyads, were verboten in shipping. :smallconfused:

GloatingSwine

2014-02-14, 07:37 PM

I'm fairly sure the sign of a valid ship is if you can come up with a portmanteau nickname for it.

Also, you can all give up, you will never beat the Avatar fandom, which shipped everyone with everyone else, and also with various inanimate objects and articles of facial hair.

Traab

2014-02-14, 08:09 PM

Lunar Harmony? I thought triads, or really, anything other than dyads, were verboten in shipping. :smallconfused:

Oh not at all. There are often very specific combos from source to source where its done. Its generally done that way when enough people decide that more than one girl would make an excellent match for their favorite main character, and think it would be an interesting combo. In this case a luna/hermione/harry combo is an interesting idea because the two ladies are near total opposites and yet dont hold any sort of ill will towards each other, meaning thats one less thing the author has to alter to make it all work. If one or more characters have a personality quirk that leads the writer to think they would be more open to a larger grouping than just boy/girl, that helps too. A good example of one girl being willing is anything with fleur and/or gabrielle. The whole veela bond thing is pretty established fanon so all harry has to do is save one or both of them and boom, he has a permanent love interest.

The non ship setups are generally those stupid harem stories where suddenly every female above the age of puberty is connected to the main character in some way. Life debts turned into slave bonds or soul bonds or whatever, marriage contracts appear connecting him to everyone because why not. There was one trio story I read that played with this. In it harry had an odd ability with his magic. If he saved a womans life, the life debt turned into a soul bond. He was with hermione (troll) and ginny (duh) and they spent much of the story trying to keep him from saving other women so this didnt keep happening. I think he ended up with one or the other delacour girls, its been awhile, not sure.

huttj509

2014-02-14, 09:07 PM

Lunar Harmony? I thought triads, or really, anything other than dyads, were verboten in shipping. :smallconfused:

How about Dryads?

Harry/Whomping Willow?

Talakeal

2014-02-14, 11:11 PM

Am I the only one who finds Dumbeldore's homosexuality fairly obvious once it is pointed out? Reading through the book again after Rowling outed him I found it very hard to miss, almost to the point of making him a flamboyant stereotype. Anytime his sense of fashion or hobbies are brought up it is always something extremely over the top and effeminate.

Combined with his total lack of interest towards or past relationships with women I am fairly certain that Rowling always had him homosexuality in mind, but refrained from stating it explicitly either because it was not relevant to the story or, more likely, she didn't want to offend her more conservative readers.

huttj509

2014-02-14, 11:24 PM

Coidzor

2014-02-14, 11:46 PM

Am I the only one who finds Dumbeldore's homosexuality fairly obvious once it is pointed out? Reading through the book again after Rowling outed him I found it very hard to miss, almost to the point of making him a flamboyant stereotype. Anytime his sense of fashion or hobbies are brought up it is always something extremely over the top and effeminate.

The only thing I can recall until the bit about Grundelgams was him blushing when Madame Pomfrey complimented him on his earmuffs or something.

None of his hobbies seemed effeminate from what little I recollect of them offhand, but then, I don't even really recall much being made out of his sense of fashion to begin with.

Granted, I might be biased because I'm sensitive and eccentric and so people keep trying to force me to be gay because anything else offends their sensibilities about manhood and homosexuality.

Nekura

2014-02-15, 05:22 AM

The only thing I can recall until the bit about Grundelgams was him blushing when Madame Pomfrey complimented him on his earmuffs or something.

None of his hobbies seemed effeminate from what little I recollect of them offhand, but then, I don't even really recall much being made out of his sense of fashion to begin with.

Granted, I might be biased because I'm sensitive and eccentric and so people keep trying to force me to be gay because anything else offends their sensibilities about manhood and homosexuality.

This. In the first book when dumping Harry of on a doorstep McGonagall was complementing Dumbledore he mentions he hadn’t blushed so much since then.

If you read them with the mindset of him being gay you might find things. However the only really stereotypically gay thing I remember was his clothing but a lot of wizards had that problem. Heck one wizard even wore muggle women’s clothing at the world cup. Was he gay? Maybe, maybe not. Luna’s dad also wore rather colorful outfits and acted very eccentric but I doubt Rowling considers him to be gay.

In the books we find out Dumbledore was close to Grindelwald and plotting to take over with him but I don’t think even Rita’s book about his life and lies even hinted about him being gay. They could have I don’t remember.

Sure some fanfics poke fun about him having a bad boy complex because of Grindelwald. They go on to speculate how close he seems to Snape and how much he “trusts” him. It isn’t supposed to be taken seriously.

About the ship names. I have only seen the Harry/Hermione pumpkin pie one actually used and even then it is more often called Harmony. For most of those I don’t think those couples are actually paired together often enough in stories for it to have been worth coming up with a name for, much less being able to say that’s what a general consensus of people agree on the name being.

Take the first one listed aberquaffle and snitch roger/Katie I have seen Katie pared with people occasionally, usually as a side pairing not the main focus of the story. However I don’t think I have seen a story with Roger paired with anyone.

Oh wait I have also seem something called severitus or something which I think was Harry/Snape. Which I just don’t get. If you want to write Harry being gay fine but the three I most often see are him with Snape, Draco, or Voldemort. Those are amongst the three least likely guys that would make sense. Might as well write him with Vernon or worm tail.

Traab

2014-02-15, 08:45 AM

The Glyphstone

2014-02-15, 01:58 PM

Might as well write him with Vernon or worm tail.

Rule 34 has been invoked. What have you done, you fool!?

Aotrs Commander

2014-02-15, 03:25 PM

naruto and sasuke

To be fair, Naruto's... well, it's gotta be said, obession with Sasuke and on a bad day, the show imagery's really do not help discourage that line of thinking...!

Traab

2014-02-15, 03:54 PM

True enough, but too be even more fair, it was a popular pairing even before narutos rather disturbing obsession with bringing sasuke back became well known. Like, back before the VotE fight early. Readers saw fresh graduate naruto and sasuke disliking each and and ROOOOOMAAAAANNNNCCCEEE!!!!! was in the air.

Nekura

2014-02-15, 06:20 PM

Yeah those are stupid, but its a strange mindset of the yaoi crowd. The theory goes, "Thats not hate, its sexual tension!" So you get harry and draco, naruto and sasuke, yugi and kiba, gandalf and saruman, whatever, you get the idea.

It’s not just the yaoi crowed. You also get Harry/Bellatrix or Hermione/Draco but not to the same degree. The Harry/Draco, Snape, or Voldemort seems to be just as popular as Harry/Ginny or Harry/Hermione.

There are a lot of male characters you could put him with that, while reading the summary would be less “what the heck is wrong with this person” inducing. They could pull what fanon did with Daphne Greengrass who was basically just a name and Hogwarts house and invent a personality only with a male character.

The Naruto/Sasuke thing was just asking for it. They had them accidentally kiss, have naruto obbessed with him, and even after Sasuke went bat **** crazy for power didn’t seem that interested in killing naruto to upgrade his eyes. But still Sasuke went insane (apparently it was unavoidable due to an uchia genetic character flaw to try to make up for all the hax abilities) and evil. Pairing him with anyone is odd at this point.

Traab

2014-02-15, 07:17 PM

It’s not just the yaoi crowed. You also get Harry/Bellatrix or Hermione/Draco but not to the same degree. The Harry/Draco, Snape, or Voldemort seems to be just as popular as Harry/Ginny or Harry/Hermione.

There are a lot of male characters you could put him with that, while reading the summary would be less “what the heck is wrong with this person” inducing. They could pull what fanon did with Daphne Greengrass who was basically just a name and Hogwarts house and invent a personality only with a male character.

The Naruto/Sasuke thing was just asking for it. They had them accidentally kiss, have naruto obbessed with him, and even after Sasuke went bat **** crazy for power didn’t seem that interested in killing naruto to upgrade his eyes. But still Sasuke went insane (apparently it was unavoidable due to an uchia genetic character flaw to try to make up for all the hax abilities) and evil. Pairing him with anyone is odd at this point.

While yes those do exist, there isnt even a fraction as many harry/bellatrix stories as there are harry/draco type setups. I just came up with another one, buffy the vampire slayer, xander/spike. lol wut? Same for xander/angel. Xander is clearly not gay as every attraction he has ever shown, (and there are more than a couple) are female only, he HATES vampires, especially hates spike and angel, and yet, yeah, total sexual tension there. This especially bugs me, as one of my favorite story categories is the yet another halloween fic setups, so when I do a random xander search, half the listing or more is slash pairings.

I will admit the naruto/sasuke one is less of a stretch. There is so much going on with those two that it would almost be easier to just have kishi flat out state it, they have subconscious at least man crushes on each other. Still doesnt stop me from picking random women from the list of secondary characters in the search function just to avoid 30 pages worth of angsty man love stories between the two of them if I leave it just searching for naruto stories.

Back to harry potter pairings, true, there is a massive amount of fanon character creation going on. Most of slytherin/hufflepuff/ravenclaw are cardboard cutouts at best, the rest are just names. So in addition to daphne you get tracey davis, or better yet, blaise, who writers cant seem to settle on making him male or female, it alternates from story to story, lol. But my main point is that while yes there are less "wtf" potential male pairings the majority tend to go across all fanfiction by pairing up the usually male lead, with his biggest male rival or outright enemy. Its just an automatic thing, and its pretty much ALWAYS one of, if not the, most common gay pairings done.

Legato Endless

2014-02-15, 09:32 PM

Yeah those are stupid, but its a strange mindset of the yaoi crowd. The theory goes, "Thats not hate, its sexual tension!" So you get harry and draco, naruto and sasuke, yugi and kiba, gandalf and saruman, whatever, you get the idea.

I think this a combination of factors. Part of it is outspoken members of this crowd will use any excuse to sell their view. The other part might be Thr changes in culture norms in the West, particularly the US. Nonromantic relationships exist in vast breadth in real life. Modern pop culture tends to cluster and invoke absurd stereotypes. Eventually this can be taken in odd ways. Any two friends in fiction, straight, slash, whatever, must exist in some fork of tension according to some circles. Him and her? Totally night happen. The particulars are irrelevant. Lord forbid, an intense intimate friendship is obviously a prelude to romance. Always. Two people who fight frequently? Attraction. They wouldn't fight so much otherwise. Vitriolic friends9 Clearly repressed.

On the internet I can ignore it, but it does spill out into real life too. I have a friend I've known all my life. Having at one point lived together with her as a child, the Westermarck effect is out in force. She's essentially my adopted sibling. As such, we are given to bickering like siblings for our own amusement given the right mood and excuse. On more than one occasion, I've been asked why I'm flirting with a married women. :smallconfused:

To the narrow minded, slap slap/tease tease = kiss kiss. No exceptions.