Interesting debate

[gategrrl]

There's an interesting debate happening on John Scalzi's blog called What Authors Know About Their Characters. It was sparked off by JK Rowling's answer to a question about one of her characters, the now famous "Dumbledore is gay" answer. The main point in contention  seems to be, who is in control of the characters in a book - the author, or the readers? Who dictates the characters' realities? And what role does the reader play in the writer/reader collaboration?

I admit I tend toward Scalzi's point-of-view. I think the writer, whether the answer is there explicitly in the text or not, has the final say as to what a character is, or is not: what the character will be, or will not be. (I'm not including television in this - TV/movies are more of a collaborative effort in production) 

Letter number 2 takes a POV that I only semi agree with. Sure, when I read a book (any book) the mythos and characters and settings and wonderment of being in that author's mind become my own while I am reading; and even if I write fanfic, or read fanfic, or imagine my own adventures for those characters, they still aren't *mine*. They're the author's. The one who imagined it all up is the one who gets to say definitively what those characters are like. And a reader may change them however to suit them in their own imagination - but it's not going to ever be the way the original author/creator considered and "grew" them. 

Anyhow, opinions, anyone?

Comments

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to go and click on this.

My opinion with fanfic is that it's when we take canon characters and create various possibilities for them. it's taking interpretations of the characters. At the end of the day, they aren't the real deal, though. Some possibilities are closer than others, for sure, but it's just another way of creating an avenue for a creation not ours. Since it's not ours, it's still an interpretation.

I think I'm in the minority with this view, though. And I tend to write as closely to canon as possible.

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

I may be quite on my own LJ, but writer talk makes me come out.

I started reading this blog and the bit with Edward Rothstein misses an important point: this is about whether JKR succeeded in portraying Dumbledore as gay in the text. This about the nature of her characters. If in her mind Dumbledore was gay, then he's gay. It's part of his persona and his backstory. Not everything about a character will come into play. That is why it is called backstory. The nature of his sexuality wasn't a naecessary plot point to propel the story forward.

(Though I argue she could have cut a ton of other stuff, but that's a different rant.)

[justalurkr.livejournal.com]

I agree that the author knows what's going on with the characters s/he writes better than anyone else.

I also think that a gay person in a position of mentorship over young people is such an explosive topic that if it wasn't important enough to mention in the context of the story, there is no good reason to bring it up after the series is over and her place in kidlit history is already assured. It comes across as smirking about putting one over on the homophobic portion of the readership and/or the sort of attention-grabbing shit-kicking that doesn't do the position of "gay is okay in positions of mentorship" any good at all.

I think JK Rowling should have had the balls to put it in the story, or the class to shut up about it afterward.

[whisper99.livejournal.com]

If I read a book wherein I really like the characters, by the second or third reading, they become mine. If the writer continues to write stories with the same characters, I'll continue to read them, however, if they should write the characters 'out of character' then I will be pissed and more than likely consider whatever happened in the story to be not canon. Fortunately this doesn't happen often :)

[aizjanika.livejournal.com]

OOoh, I haven't read the article, but I kind of disagree. Any art is subject to interpretation, and it becomes whatever each individual reader sees--whether it's a painting or a song or a story or any type.

I don't think either "dictates" the characters' realities, though. The writer does as he or she is writing, but beyond that, the characters are whoever you, the reader, think they are. Just like two people observing a car accident and seeing completely different things, I might read a story and get something completely different out of it than someone else. That's the way it goes.

I have to admit that I rather disliked JRK coming out and saying Dumbledore is gay--not because I didn't like that idea, because I love it--but because it seemed to me to be a sort of a desire to control what people think of her work--to try to make everyone interpret things in her way--in a sort of Boys at Bridge kind of way, if you will.

Most of the time, though, I love hearing the artist's interpretation of his or her work--what was originally intended. I love it when a songwriter says, "The song means whatever you think it means," but I equally love shows like Storytellers where the songwriters tell how or why they wrote songs. Some tell only the external circumstances, but some explain what the song meant to them as they wrote it or even what it was about. Whatever an artist (writer, musician, actor, whoever) wants to share about their work is interesting to me.

But yeah... I do see what JKR did in the way I said above. It's not that I don't think she can say whatever she wants, but she keeps retconning her stories--the ships, the jobs, whatever--after the fact, and sorry--it's too late. The books are written and people think what they want. If she were sharing *her* interpretation or her thoughts as she was writing it or anything even remotely interesting like that, I'd love to hear about it, but it's more the way she's been going about this that sort of rubs me the wrong way. *g*