I’m sure most of you heard that J.K. Rowling “announced” that a character in the Harry Potter series – Dumbledore – “is” gay. (Disclaimer: I have not read any Harry Potter books; I have not seen any Harry Potter movies.)
Something struck me as very odd about this statement. Dumbledore is a fictional character. He exists – and “is” whatever he “is” – only because Rowling put some words on a piece of paper. As a result, to my mind, the circumstances and facts relating to his “existence” are solely those that are spelled out on the page. It just doesn’t make any sense to me, as a reader, to think that the author still “controls” the character after “The End.” I am free to imagine other aspects of characters, but it bothers me that an author feels free to hover just offstage, ready to pop in after the curtain’s come down and tell us more facts about characters who are, for literary purposes, gone.
Since I have not read any Harry Potter books, I am not invested in Dumbledore as a character. I don't "know" him. By analogy, I imagine what it would feel like if John Updike said in an interview that Rabbit Angstrom -- whom I do "know" -- was gay (or a CIA spy, or an alien). I would feel pissed and cheated. When a writer closes the book on a character, the reader is implicitly told, “There you go. I’ve said everything I’m going to say. Everything else is up to you.”
Does it bother anyone else?
(Further disclaimer: I have not found Rowling’s actual quote. She has been paraphrased, at least, as saying the character “is” gay, as opposed to saying that she “thinks he might be” gay. I think the latter might be a fair comment from Rowling, as she is simply expressing an inference that could be drawn from the words she has written, as opposed to asserting a completely independent fact.)
Something struck me as very odd about this statement. Dumbledore is a fictional character. He exists – and “is” whatever he “is” – only because Rowling put some words on a piece of paper. As a result, to my mind, the circumstances and facts relating to his “existence” are solely those that are spelled out on the page. It just doesn’t make any sense to me, as a reader, to think that the author still “controls” the character after “The End.” I am free to imagine other aspects of characters, but it bothers me that an author feels free to hover just offstage, ready to pop in after the curtain’s come down and tell us more facts about characters who are, for literary purposes, gone.
Since I have not read any Harry Potter books, I am not invested in Dumbledore as a character. I don't "know" him. By analogy, I imagine what it would feel like if John Updike said in an interview that Rabbit Angstrom -- whom I do "know" -- was gay (or a CIA spy, or an alien). I would feel pissed and cheated. When a writer closes the book on a character, the reader is implicitly told, “There you go. I’ve said everything I’m going to say. Everything else is up to you.”
Does it bother anyone else?
(Further disclaimer: I have not found Rowling’s actual quote. She has been paraphrased, at least, as saying the character “is” gay, as opposed to saying that she “thinks he might be” gay. I think the latter might be a fair comment from Rowling, as she is simply expressing an inference that could be drawn from the words she has written, as opposed to asserting a completely independent fact.)