That’s some pretty damned lazy sequel writing.
Didn’t even have to write a short story.
1 Like
Well, if it were just about the original books, that would be absolutely fair (and JK mentioning she thought of Dumbledore as having a relationship with Grindelwald would be nothing more than an irrelevant curiosity about how Rowling was thinking about the character).
But based on the ads/reviews, Dumbledore and Grindelwald are both fairly central characters in the latest prequel (where it’s not from a child’s POV), and apparently there’s no hint of any sort of relationship at all - and JK wrote the script. So her continuing to talk about how she thinks about their relationship, while not actually referencing it in any way in the work itself, even when it would be appropriate, is getting increasingly bizarre, frankly.
No, she’s actually the credited scriptwriter for these movies (and the next 3 according to IMDB), not just “based on a story by,” which is what makes this so weird. She could absolutely write in some kind of reference, even oblique, to their relationship, but apparently it’s not in the films.
6 Likes
The Potterverse is problematic in all sorts of ways. See thread:
And then we have the house elves (“they love being slaves!”). And the goblins…
6 Likes
I’m drawing a blank on the part of the books that states or implies “non-magical disabilities can be cured with magic” (unless she’s talking about the ability to magically cure broken bones with Skele-Grow?)
If so, it’s even more monstrous that nobody ever questions the Wizarding World’s refusal to share any of their miraculous powers with the Muggle world.
3 Likes
The Crimes of Grindrwald
1 Like
OK, that makes sense. Like I said I haven’t seen the prequel movies, I just remember that Rowling first mentioned Dumbledore’s sexuality a number of years ago. I didn’t even realize she was a writer in the new films, I figured she was probably just raking in the royalties while other people did the work now.
2 Likes
yeah there is an ethical dillema in this if you think about it. After all wizards are human… I don’t see why the regrowing of broken bones etc couldnt be used for everyone. At one point Ron’s dad gets muggle stitches and his wife is appalled by the barbarity of it.
From the Philospher’s stone:
Harry: ‘But what does a Ministry of Magic do?’
Hagrid: ‘Well, their main job is to keep it from the Muggles that there’s still witches an’ wizards up an’ down the country.’
‘Why?’
‘Why? Blimey, Harry, everyone’d be wantin’ magic solutions to their problems . Nah, we’re best left alone.’
3 Likes
hehe
I love how this comment has worked for more than one boingboing thread over the last few days.
1 Like
Yeah, it’s a bit strange. She wanted to write movie scripts, I guess, so now she’s got this five (plus?) movie series that she’s writing all the scripts for. (Yet they feel like a not-terribly faithful spin-off done by someone else, based on the one movie I saw.)
That she did nothing with a relationship she once mentioned didn’t, on its own, necessarily surprise me, but she keeps talking about it despite the fact that it doesn’t exist in her own text. Which is weird.
5 Likes
I don’t have any problem with JK Rowling shipping her own characters. Fandom is its own thing.
I think representation does matter, especially to kids, but it’s not about checking boxes, and in fact I feel quite strongly that that approach is counterproductive. As a fagling, I never had a problem identifying with characters because they were (implicitly) straight. Overwhelmingly, my beef was with the presence of negative representation, not the absence of positive representation.
The way to show kids that it’s OK to be gay is to not tell them it isn’t.. The way to show kids that it’s “normal” to be gay is… well, don’t do that, because it’s not true. If you are queer, your romantic life will not work the same as a straight person’s. It irks me that writers pat themselves on the back for “representing gay characters” when they’ve actually just slapped a false label on a character who - precisely because they are positioned as “normal” - corresponds to a straight person in real life.
So, good for JK Rowling for not writing a check she has no intention of cashing.
5 Likes
3 Likes
Rrrrrroger that!
1 Like
She was also in Britain, where general attitudes towards LGBT were more advanced than the US’s at the time. The first gay kiss on British children’s television was on Byker Grove in 1994.
Gary’s reaction was set up so the show could deal with homophobia issues.
Also, a little bit later:
Actually, watched the newest film a week or so ago. Wasn’t a great movie, but it was PRETTY clear that Dumbledore and Grindelwald had a relationship. NOT MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD
There are like 3 or 4 flashbacks of them in slo-mo touching each other softly, entwining arms together, close up on skin, etc. At one point, some characters are talking to Dumbledore about his relationship with Grindelwald, saying something like “We know this is hard for you, since you were like brothers.” and Dumbledore looks wistful for a second, they flash back to show the young men touching and holding hands, looking into each others eyes in a dark room, Jude Law smiles softly and says “We were much more than brothers”, though maybe sans the word “much”. And this was not the only scene to this effect. One of the physical MacGuffins in the film is literally a love token between them.
Yeah - it was pretty heavily implied in the film that they had something going on.
5 Likes
Once again, Rowling has demonstrated that a Twitter feed is not a positive addition to the creative process.
The novels were a successful and phenomenally popular YA series. Had she left things there, the world would have been satisfied. All her online activities beyond that point have not enhanced her work or her reputation.
2 Likes
Head canon.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
