Jump to content

Menu

Rowling Admits that Harry and Hermione Should've Gotten Married


JumpyTheFrog
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wish Rowling would stop with these "revelations" that are basically meant to keep herself relevant.

This is exactly how I feel. I know she's written some other things here and there but they never get the same praise as the HP series. I feel like whenever she is fading and/or has something new in the works she shares more detail. I hated that she revealed dumbledore was gay. Like that had nothing to do with anything about his character. Why couldn't he have been the eccentric but wise headmaster?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly how I feel. I know she's written some other things here and there but they never get the same praise as the HP series. I feel like whenever she is fading and/or has something new in the works she shares more detail. I hated that she revealed dumbledore was gay. Like that had nothing to do with anything about his character. Why couldn't he have been the eccentric but wise headmaster?

Actually, she did feel it had to do with his character and his relationship with Grindelwald. She made that revelation in response to a specific question. It was part of the same talk in which she said Neville ended up with Hannah Abbott. I think the reveal was fine given the context.

 

Here is the link again: http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/10/20/j-k-rowling-at-carnegie-hall-reveals-dumbledore-is-gay-neville-marries-hannah-abbott-and-scores-more

 

For me, the difference between that sort of reveal and this latest statement is that the latest statement reveals a *change*, which I have to agree makes her more George Lucasy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the oblique reference in the stories to the grindewald relationship but I just feel it should have still be left at the oblique reference. That's just me. I had this image and idea of dumbledore and it bugged me. I don't care that he was gay for itself but it ruined the image I had

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the oblique reference in the stories to the grindewald relationship but I just feel it should have still be left at the oblique reference. That's just me. I had this image and idea of dumbledore and it bugged me. I don't care that he was gay for itself but it ruined the image I had

 

I agree. It's the same as not needing to spell out what is meant by Aberforth putting "inappropriate charms on a goat." Adults and older teens can come up with a meaning that speaks to Aberforth as an odd bird who was shamed publicly; younger readers can just let that sail right on by as, "He did magic on a goat." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that epilogue? Oh, man. Why, oh why, didn't some editor say to her, "This is terrible and you know it. Re-write it."

The whole 7th book is in desperate need of an editor. I got the distinct impression that by that point the publisher was treating her as the "can-do-no-wrong-superstar-author" of a juggernaut series they were eager to get to market ASAP and nobody bothered to do their jobs as editors or tell her what sucked. Because there are some things in there that really do suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the oblique reference in the stories to the grindewald relationship but I just feel it should have still be left at the oblique reference. That's just me. I had this image and idea of dumbledore and it bugged me. I don't care that he was gay for itself but it ruined the image I had

 

I also suspected that Dumbledore might have been gay from that before she revealed it, but I wish she had gone the other way.  Either out him in the books or don't out him at all.  The literary world could use a few more gay heroes, so that would have been great.  But outing him after the fact makes it feel to me like she was keeping him in the closet, which is not exactly the message I want kids to get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole 7th book is in desperate need of an editor. I got the distinct impression that by that point the publisher was treating her as the "can-do-no-wrong-superstar-author" of a juggernaut series they were eager to get to market ASAP and nobody bothered to do their jobs as editors or tell her what sucked. Because there are some things in there that really do suck.

 

Actually, I've seen something where she talked about how originally that bad fanfic-like ending was more than a hundred pages, so I suspect someone did edit it down.  But clearly they should have gone farther.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I've seen something where she talked about how originally that bad fanfic-like ending was more than a hundred pages, so I suspect someone did edit it down. But clearly they should have gone farther.

If the first book had been more like the 7th, there would have been no second book. I recall her saying she edited down the ending but nothing about the last book is as smooth and as tight as the first few. Famous authors get more say so/control and no one is more famous than JK Rowling. Living anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also suspected that Dumbledore might have been gay from that before she revealed it, but I wish she had gone the other way. Either out him in the books or don't out him at all. The literary world could use a few more gay heroes, so that would have been great. But outing him after the fact makes it feel to me like she was keeping him in the closet, which is not exactly the message I want kids to get.

I completely agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the oblique reference in the stories to the grindewald relationship but I just feel it should have still be left at the oblique reference. That's just me. I had this image and idea of dumbledore and it bugged me. I don't care that he was gay for itself but it ruined the image I had

Then you don't have to read it. Honestly I am confused by the opinions that her art belongs to the public. This is her world, her art, her writing. And to keep herself relevant? Please. She has what? A billion dollars? She's not a pompous person from anything I've ever read. People ask, she answers. If you don't like what she answers, well, someone will always be unhappy. Read something else and allow us geeks to quiver with joy at one more glimpse into the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also suspected that Dumbledore might have been gay from that before she revealed it, but I wish she had gone the other way.  Either out him in the books or don't out him at all.  The literary world could use a few more gay heroes, so that would have been great.  But outing him after the fact makes it feel to me like she was keeping him in the closet, which is not exactly the message I want kids to get.

Ok, so if she did, two big things would happen: 1. More conservatives would push it to be banned or not allow their kids to read it (look at the House of Hades). 2. People would complain that she was pushing to have a gay character just to get attention or make headlines. I mean, look at how people are reacting over one of her regrets from the book. "She's just trying to stay important!" Darned if she does, darned if she doesn't. And to me, it's as irrelevant to the story. It was clear he had feelings for Grindewald. Most people were not surprised by the revelation. Sure, it's part of who he was, but why bring attention to it for no reason? It's not like him kissing Grindy was on the front page of The Quibbler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People ask, she answers. If you don't like what she answers, well, someone will always be unhappy. Read something else and allow us geeks to quiver with joy at one more glimpse into the world.

 

I would assume that just about everyone who posted in this thread is a Harry Potter geek, whether we're quivering with joy or rolling our eyes over the latest Rowling revelation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that just about everyone who posted in this thread is a Harry Potter geek, whether we're quivering with joy or rolling our eyes over the latest Rowling revelation.

 

I wasn't just referencing this thread, sorry. I've seen several people I know don't like HP complaining on FB about this. ;) my statements were general and not meant to be aimed at any one person. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you don't have to read it. Honestly I am confused by the opinions that her art belongs to the public. This is her world, her art, her writing. And to keep herself relevant? Please. She has what? A billion dollars? She's not a pompous person from anything I've ever read. People ask, she answers. If you don't like what she answers, well, someone will always be unhappy. Read something else and allow us geeks to quiver with joy at one more glimpse into the world.

 

I think when you publish something, while you do, obviously, continue to legally own it, you've given it to the people to consume, enjoy, interpret, speculate about, and generally respond to.  While I would welcome her to make new art about the world she created, all this commentary isn't art, it's just verbiage to me.  It's as if Van Gogh rose from the dead, broke into a museum, and tried to change the perspective on his room or added some daisies in among the sunflowers.  If Van Gogh could rise from the dead, I'd love him to paint some more, but not go try and paint over the works we already have.  I love Harry Potter and trying to rework it as if we're her giant worldwide critique group is just sad to me.

 

Ok, so if she did, two big things would happen: 1. More conservatives would push it to be banned or not allow their kids to read it (look at the House of Hades). 2. People would complain that she was pushing to have a gay character just to get attention or make headlines. I mean, look at how people are reacting over one of her regrets from the book. "She's just trying to stay important!" Darned if she does, darned if she doesn't. And to me, it's as irrelevant to the story. It was clear he had feelings for Grindewald. Most people were not surprised by the revelation. Sure, it's part of who he was, but why bring attention to it for no reason? It's not like him kissing Grindy was on the front page of The Quibbler.

 

People were quite surprised at that revelation.  There was a gasp in the room when she said it.  And a slew of surprised commentary after.  When I read book 7, I thought, gee, is she implying...?  Well, probably not.  So while it had occurred to me, I was surprised.  I don't have a problem with her making a vague, unclear reference that's completely up for interpretation in the book, while having the idea in her mind about the background for the character that he's gay.  Fine.  Writers know all kinds of things about their characters that they don't share in their published work.  But to come out and say it, while keeping the character closeted on the pages bothers me.  It would be greatly relevant to millions of young gay kids reading Harry Potter to see that beloved, respected heroes can be gay.  We learn that other characters are clearly straight.  We learn all kinds of "irrelevant" information about many characters in the books, including about their romantic lives.  Yet Dumbledore has to stay in the closet even though the world now knows he was gay in the author's mind.  I find the whole message very strange, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 It's as if Van Gogh rose from the dead, broke into a museum, and tried to change the perspective on his room or added some daisies in among the sunflowers.  If Van Gogh could rise from the dead, I'd love him to paint some more, but not go try and paint over the works we already have.  I love Harry Potter and trying to rework it as if we're her giant worldwide critique group is just sad to me.

 

 

 

 

I don't think JKR is trying to "rework" her novels.  It sounds to me like she is just sharing her regrets as an author about the choices she made, and I think it is great she is willing to do that. I think many people would also be thrilled to hear Van Gogh's critique of his own works.  No, it would be awful if he painted over his great works, but to hear him reflect on artistic decisions he made and later regretted would be very interesting.  

 

I am not a huge Harry Potter person.  I read the first three but sort of lost interest - though I did see all the movies.  But when I think of literary characters I love, it would be very tempting if I had the ability to talk to the authors about them.  The author is sort of like God - he or she controls an outcome.  I have a lot of things I want to ask God, and I guess I would like to talk to Tolstoy and George Elliot in the same way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is, in my opinion, a huge difference in the books and the movies. The movies didn't touch a lot of the inner workings because, well they are movies. The movies did the best they good and I enjoy watching them but I also enjoy the books a lot more because or the depth you get

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luna didn't end up with Neville. Neville marries Hannah Abbott. Yes, I'm a giant nerd, and I know these things off of the top of my head.

Well, that's embarrassing! My memory is terrible. I wonder why I remembered it that way? I read all the books before I saw any of the movies. Perhaps something stuck in my head from a movie scene? Even then it's been a while.

 

Something I am sure of, I remember thinking what someone mentioned above - Remus Lupin's name. I thought the same thing - who knew? Predestination. Wonder if that made it into any of the no doubt scores of essays on theology in the Harry Potter universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you publish something, while you do, obviously, continue to legally own it, you've given it to the people to consume, enjoy, interpret, speculate about, and generally respond to. While I would welcome her to make new art about the world she created, all this commentary isn't art, it's just verbiage to me. It's as if Van Gogh rose from the dead, broke into a museum, and tried to change the perspective on his room or added some daisies in among the sunflowers. If Van Gogh could rise from the dead, I'd love him to paint some more, but not go try and paint over the works we already have. I love Harry Potter and trying to rework it as if we're her giant worldwide critique group is just sad to me.

The bolded is exactly my sentiment. I understand changing things as you go up to the point of submission. Wasn't Longfellow notorious for constant revisions of his work? But once it's submitted, printed and now read by millions... Let It Go. Have an interview, express regrets, talk about what you would have done different. Fine. But be done. It seems like these announces, IMHO, are never done. And that gives me the impression of trying to keep HP in the limelight. Especially when Casual Vacancy flopped.

 

 

People were quite surprised at that revelation. There was a gasp in the room when she said it. And a slew of surprised commentary after. When I read book 7, I thought, gee, is she implying...? Well, probably not. So while it had occurred to me, I was surprised. I don't have a problem with her making a vague, unclear reference that's completely up for interpretation in the book, while having the idea in her mind about the background for the character that he's gay. Fine. Writers know all kinds of things about their characters that they don't share in their published work. But to come out and say it, while keeping the character closeted on the pages bothers me. It would be greatly relevant to millions of young gay kids reading Harry Potter to see that beloved, respected heroes can be gay. We learn that other characters are clearly straight. We learn all kinds of "irrelevant" information about many characters in the books, including about their romantic lives. Yet Dumbledore has to stay in the closet even though the world now knows he was gay in the author's mind. I find the whole message very strange, honestly.

Can't say it better than that.

 

As an aside, I felt the series when downhill with Goblet of Fire. Personally, that needed some massive editing. Order of the Phoenix irritated me but finally Half-Blood Prince brought me back. I wasn't surprised with Deathly Hallows, thought it read like a Hollywood movie to me. And by that point, everyone knew there would be one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with her. Ron and Hermoines don't make sense as a couple. I'm 100% okay with that - most of the couples I know and love don't make sense as a couple, lol, and it's all the little things that don't quite seem to add up that make them unique and special as a pair.

Sincerely,

A Hermoine married to a Neville

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luna didn't end up with Neville. Neville marries Hannah Abbott. Yes, I'm a giant nerd, and I know these things off of the top of my head. 

 

 

Well, that's embarrassing! My memory is terrible. I wonder why I remembered it that way? I read all the books before I saw any of the movies. Perhaps something stuck in my head from a movie scene? Even then it's been a while.

 

IIRC in the movie--Deathly Hallows 2--Neville briefly expresses his romantic feelings for Luna, but that is not in the books at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you publish something, while you do, obviously, continue to legally own it, you've given it to the people to consume, enjoy, interpret, speculate about, and generally respond to. While I would welcome her to make new art about the world she created, all this commentary isn't art, it's just verbiage to me. It's as if Van Gogh rose from the dead, broke into a museum, and tried to change the perspective on his room or added some daisies in among the sunflowers. If Van Gogh could rise from the dead, I'd love him to paint some more, but not go try and paint over the works we already have. I love Harry Potter and trying to rework it as if we're her giant worldwide critique group is just sad to me.

 

 

 

People were quite surprised at that revelation. There was a gasp in the room when she said it. And a slew of surprised commentary after. When I read book 7, I thought, gee, is she implying...? Well, probably not. So while it had occurred to me, I was surprised. I don't have a problem with her making a vague, unclear reference that's completely up for interpretation in the book, while having the idea in her mind about the background for the character that he's gay. Fine. Writers know all kinds of things about their characters that they don't share in their published work. But to come out and say it, while keeping the character closeted on the pages bothers me. It would be greatly relevant to millions of young gay kids reading Harry Potter to see that beloved, respected heroes can be gay. We learn that other characters are clearly straight. We learn all kinds of "irrelevant" information about many characters in the books, including about their romantic lives. Yet Dumbledore has to stay in the closet even though the world now knows he was gay in the author's mind. I find the whole message very strange, honestly.

Meh. We will have to agree to disagree. Besides being creeped out by Van Gogh's reanimated corpse, I would be intrigued if he came back and changed things in his work or gave his perspective on what he would have changed or regretted. But Rowling isn't doing that. She voiced a regret or change she would have made in an interview where she was asked. And it is her work. Which goes along with this blog article by Neil Gaiman that I agree with. It's along similar lines. http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2009/05/entitlement-issues.html

 

And of course I'd love to see more LGBT characters. I'm pleased as punch with Nico as you can search back and see from my multiple defenses of Riordan. I just don't see how it was relevant to this book. For me, neither I nor many of my hardcore HP fan friends were surprised, so that was just my experience. I highly doubt Rowling left it out as some sort of conspiracy to keep gay characters out of her books. As far as him being in the closet, I just never got that feeling. It seems all of the teachers are rather...celibate in the books, so it never seemed to be an issue. And of course he would want the history of his personal involvement with Grindewald held secret after what Grindewald did. I didn't see that as part of his sexuality so much as distancing himself from someone who became almost a monster of sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my world, almost no one died.  So when I hear someone mentioning the dead people I have to remind myself that they are actually right and I am just living in denial.  I also thought Harry was rather suited to Luna.  :D

I still cry every time I read a death in the books. I've read them more than 15 times. You'd think by now I could get myself under control. Lol

 

You know I had never shipped Harry/Luna, but looking back now, that would be rather interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen this? 

 

Why JK Rowling is Wrong About Harry and Hermoine

 

I tend to agree with the writer of the article.

 

:iagree:

 

From the article: "If Harry and Hermione were to end up together, it’s just another example of the leading man 'getting the girl.' It’s not that there’s any sort of competition between Harry and Ron, and Hermione is clearly given her own agency in being with either of them, but I always found it refreshing for the main hero to not end up with his friend, the smart, beautiful girl. Instead, she falls in love with the other affable friend, and the sidekick gets to be happy too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I disagree that artists and authors get to come out and tell us everything about their art and make it a part of that.  Part of art is the interpretation of it.  It feels like Rowling simply doesn't understand that.  I get that it's hard to let it go, but let it go.  We get to read into it what we want now.  That's art.

 

 

This is why it bothers me. I like a little ambiguity in my books. I don’t really want to know all the tied up details at the end. Part of reading for me is in what I as a reader bring to the book. I don’t need to know for sure that Dumbledore is gay or not gay, it’s more interesting to wonder. I don’t need to know who every single person ended up marrying and what job they had and what kind of house they lived in, etc. It’s more interesting to imagine. 

 

I also think that for this kind of series, it’s somewhat disrespectful to the fans to make these kinds of “oops, I meant something different†kind of revelations. Yes, she’s the author and has the right to do it but that doesn’t mean she should do it. When I hear her say that she should have written it a different way, I feel like I’ve been tricked into caring about characters and storylines that now she is saying were wrong. The Ron/Hermione romance is huge in the books, it’s not something that just happened at the end. She got me to care about them and root for them and now it’s like she’s saying I (and other fans) were foolish to do so. That just sees like a revelation best kept to herself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why it bothers me. I like a little ambiguity in my books. I don’t really want to know all the tied up details at the end. Part of reading for me is in what I as a reader bring to the book. I don’t need to know for sure that Dumbledore is gay or not gay, it’s more interesting to wonder. I don’t need to know who every single person ended up marrying and what job they had and what kind of house they lived in, etc. It’s more interesting to imagine.

 

That's funny, I like my books to be very spelled out.  I don't like sitting and wondering what happened.  I like things tied up into bows :) .  Now, I will read books that aren't all straight lines and wrapped up endings, but I like the ones that are that way the best :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...