Dumbledore Really Dead?!?!?!?!?
| So, the rumors are all flying around about Rowling's comments at the press conference in NYC on Tuesday. Quite a few have it up: Travis (see his comments box for excerpts of the "petition to ban book 7") Mugglenet coverage LaShawn b I guess the only thing I really have to say is the proverbial "It's all fun and games till somebody gets an eye poked out" What I mean is, well, we've had some discussion here on King's comments and all, on the writing in the HP series (the whole adverb comment ... which if I have time I'll throw my take on "adverbial melodrama" in on the comments here). But here is my baseline take on the whole press conference and the "aftermath": I do have to honestly ask myself "Who made out on the deal?" It's actually a pretty common business question ... When Pauli and I were in a band together we swapped shows with another Pittsburgh band twice (we open for you at one gig, you open for us at another, we pay each other $100 for gas and food money each time and call it even ...we get in front of your crowd, you get in front of our crowd ... that's the real trade). The first time we did it with this band was like 1990, and it was more of an even deal, and the second time, in 1993 ... we definitely made out on the deal, no two ways about it ... simple math. The math seems pretty simple to me on NYC on Tuesday: King and Irving made out on this deal. So, but we all wanted the event and info ... if I could have made it to NYC to hear her read I would have. But the "info pumping" has its price. Now everyone is all ticked ... if you read Travis's comments box there is a petition going round to "ban" book 7 ... in short everybody is all in a huff. But what did we all expect? Personally I do not mind near so much that it may be clinched that DD is definitely dead (I mean, the guy was human ... and outside of a guy getting a chariot ride in the OT, nobody has evaded it ... not even Lazarus lived forever after he walked by out through the in door of the tomb) ... not nearly as much as I do mind knowing this far in advance of reading book 7. The thing is, I don't really blame Rowling. Like I said, this wasn't much of a publicity stunt on her part, at least I don't think it was ... it was more Irving and King that made out on the deal (when was the last time you waited an hour in line at Barnes and Noble at a midnight release of either of their books?). Then you have the "pressing press" ... millions of questions, microphones, flash bulbs and the whole nine yards (did you know that is originally a violent war term ... British planes [I think] in WWII carried exactly 27 linear feat of ammunition for their guns when fully loaded ... hence unloading all your ammo at a single target referred to as "giving it the whole 9 yards") ... I can imagination an exasperated author being a little tired and dropping that just out of being tired and cranky from long hours of people hounding you with the questions. Funny thing about the "need to know" types ... give 'em what they want and then they stone you for it - I read some of the stuff in the "appeal to ban book 7" ... I was like "Exactly what planet are you people from ... or exactly how big is the joint your smoking and what in the world is it laced with?" Lack of respect for her readers? Give me a break. The people who are all ticked are the people who were licking their chops and drooling like Fenrir Greyback to read what was in the press, probably to do write ups and all. I'm the type ... I didn't see the ending of "The Sixth Sense" coming till it reached up and bit me in the butt ... and I honestly think I enjoyed the movie more and "got the experience" that was meant to convey the artistic point etc, more directly than if I had gone in second guessing and figured out the plot before hand (and been all that clever). I think the same thing with this ... I would have rather not known. I think that in the end Rowling would have rather not said. I'm pretty sure that somebody like John Granger would rather not have had that info with the "Who Killed AD and is He really Dead" book coming out ... and to be honest, I don't think it is "money grubbing" to say "good grief ... couldn't the wolves have waited to drag that blood out of her till I got the book out and some sales ... you know, to feed my family?" I stick to the same line I did about Harry being the final DADA teacher ... I still think that if he is not (as that interview would seem to indicate) that the indicators are real and, maybe, rather than contributing to a "true plot prediction" they contribute instead to a "expectational tension" that interplays with the final events to yield some point in the artistry of the meaning of the series. I think the same of the DD isn't dead speculation ... examining the material in the works is profitable regardless of whether the prediction is "right." But of course, with the way the marketing machine works ... I'm guessing that now that the press has bled this one out of her that Granger's book might be dead in the water ... If it comes out, though, at least I am going to buy a copy. anyway, just my $0.02 worth |
Comments on "Dumbledore Really Dead?!?!?!?!?"
-
Anonymous said ... (August 04, 2006 2:38 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 04, 2006 6:50 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 04, 2006 9:34 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 04, 2006 9:37 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 04, 2006 10:33 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 04, 2006 10:50 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 05, 2006 7:49 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 05, 2006 8:13 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 05, 2006 10:31 AM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (August 05, 2006 11:26 AM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 05, 2006 2:11 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 05, 2006 4:12 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 05, 2006 4:20 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 05, 2006 4:22 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (August 05, 2006 4:25 PM)
:
-
Anonymous said ... (August 06, 2006 12:21 PM)
:
post a commentVery good look at the issue. I agree - poking through all the details was fun and profitable, even if the DD is not Dead theory was never possible. I imagine this is a pretty hard one for those who put a lot of effort into that theory. And it's not as though JKR has never done this before - the "Snape as Vampire" theory had *some* canonical support (the "overgrown bat" comments, the Lupin vampire essay, etc.), but she wrote it off pretty strongly.
At the same time...I don't think she's been purposefully deceptive or mean. I just don't agree with that. Some feelings are hurt, but goodness...is it worth all the vitriole coming from some folks? She's just such a good storyteller, we are *bound* to chase rabbit trails a few times, and even get really caught up in them. Just goes to show how good she is at surprise endings and how, despite our best efforts to figure things out, she'll surprise us again in Book 7.
My guess is the "Who Killed AD" book is dead at this point...I haven't heard anything from John on it specifically. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
But personally, I am glad she cleared this one up. To be honest, the detective work was good and the theories interesting, but I never really thought that a Faked DD theory was plausible. For the sake of "moving on" to other important conversations before book 7 arrives, I am glad we know.
Yeah, I figure let her write her story in peace and be patient and enjoy it. There is plenty of good stuff to delve into until book 7 of stuff that is really ther ein the text meaning-wise and fun-wise. I like reading stuff like Felicity's theories because even if it is not "right" as a prediction, it's a really amazing job of reading the text closely and giving a good focus on and development of Hogwarts as central to the story as this "home" for which Harry and Voldy are sort of competing, one trying to dominate and one trying to save ... and bringing out the little ways Rowling has left open that Voldy may have been able to get back in over the years and whatthis might tell us about certain tendencies the wizarding world ... the focus on transfiguration, the way that Fred and George function as revealers as some of this through their use of the map and giving it to Harry and just simply (Felicity) having the same sort of lively interest, and really in a way respect for, Hogwarts as a place that Rowling has, all the aspects and dimensions she paints in the place ... and the characters - how Voldy would have loved the irony of it he were to hide a horcrux disguised as a badge for "magical merit," seeing as what he wanted was not to get credit for catching SLytherin's heir but for being the heir. That's some really good insight into the character and the dimensions of the setting.
And I still think there is some really intricate stuff going on under the surface on the tower. The "stoppered death" theory is still possible ... there is definitely more to the wihthered hand than meets the eye, on both the material level and the symbolic level (actually, if John Irving were a little more on his game and thinking more about some of the positive symbolism he has used, he should have made a comment connecting that to his use, in A Prayer for Owen Meany of the ones who appear limited being more powerful ... like the totem pole, the stuffed armadillo that Owen takes the claws of, the narrators missing index finger as a more effective pointer later in life, the mother's dress dummy with no arms)
I always thought the "not dead yet" theory was a possibility, just not sure how probable ... but not really too concerned other than "hmmm, what could she be doing with that if it is the case ... the master chess player drawing the enemy out is always a good one - Dune's "feint within a feint within a feint" thing. and I have always loved DD's praise of Ron's chess game in book 1 as a symbol).
Now that it seems it is not possible that he is alive, like you say ... move on, there is so much there in the text to keep unraveling and thinking about, so much rich characterization ... there is now way I'm not buying book 7 and I trust her that it's gonna be a pretty exciting read and good conclusion to the series.
(Plus, I mean, people don't really think a "ban" or boycott is going to work do they? I mean, do they realize how huge this thing is at this point?)
I agree with both of you on many points.
A minority of readers is in a huff, and a minority of readers was in a huff after the release of HBP because their favorite “ship”—Harry/Hermione—was taken off the table. From what I understand, a similarly unhinged petition was started as a result of Rowling’s “treachery” in pairing Harry with Ginny. And many of the H/Hr shippers are still holding out a la Dumbledoreisnotdead.com that Rowling merely mislead everyone for the time to protect her story and that their theories will prove correct in the end because, you know, all the clues support them 100%.
I have to say that the Alivers (as they’re called) only represented about 15-20% of all members of the largest Internet forums like Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron, so among all readers, I wouldn’t expect Alivers to represent more than a small fraction. Janet Batchler over on HogPro is a professional screenwriter, and she has written that the great majority of readers, child and adult, took the death at face value, and if Snape turns out to have been a White Hat all along, it will be the greatest twist since “Luke I am your father.” Very few people among Rowling’s hundreds of millions of readers are getting as geeky as we are about the books.
Rowling has a history of shutting down what she calls unprofitable lines of inquiry (like Snape as vampire, the Sorting Hat as a Horcrux, etc.). More to the point, she was once asked if James Potter and Remus Lupin had switched places before Voldemort’s attack on Godric’s Hollow, and I understand she was very upset because of what that theory implied about James Potter’s character. I have a feeling that she was upset with the Faked Death Dumbledore theory for the same reason.
For me, one of the strongest arguments against Faked Death Dumbledore was that it required Dumbledore, the epitome of goodness per Rowling, to follow in the footsteps of Peter Pettigrew, Barty Crouch, Jr., and Lord Voldemort in hoodwinking the entire WW into believing he had died. As McGonagall said in PS, Dumbledore is too noble to stoop to the level of Voldemort’s side. As several posters on HogPro noted, Rowling takes the theme of death too seriously to have written the final wrenching chapters of HBP with the The Phoenix Lament and The White Tomb only to pull the rug out from under her young readers (“Surprise! He’s still alive!”). It would be a frivolous treatment of a subject that for Rowling and many of her readers is not something to avoid facing, but not something to trifle with.
IMO the “weirdness” of the description of Dumbledore’s death is an expression of Rowling’s understanding of the anguish that death causes. Watching Dumbledore die was surreal for Harry. The narrator described Dumbledore as “seeming” to hang for a split second before slowly falling over the ramparts like a rag doll. But it had taken Harry a minute to realize that he wasn’t jinxed anymore; rather horror and shock, not the jinx, had been paralyzing him, so Harry’s senses were confounded by what happened. A short time later, Harry and Hagrid were described as moving “dreamlike” toward Dumbledore’s body. So I think the slow-motion description of Dumbledore’s falling body and the “dreamlike” depiction of Harry as he was walking toward Dumbledore’s body are telling us about Harry’s distressed state-of-mind, not something odd about the AK Snape threw at him. As for other "clues" that have been mentioned in support of FDD, I've read too many excellent refutations that IMO are more consistent with the rest of the HP canon.
From her point of view IMO, Faked Death Dumbledore wasn’t just another theory, and for the consideration it was getting among the most obsessed readers, it was drawing attention away from the things that are profitable to be discussing: how Harry will defeat Voldemort, the meaning of the gleam in Dumbledore’s eye, how justice might be restored to the WW, the identity and location of the remaining Horcruxes, etc. So I, for one, am not sorry she shut down the Faked Death theory, and I understand why she did it.
I don't know if Pauli and Merlin have seen this, which was posted on the Leaky Forums:
As there is apprently no full transcript available yet, I thought I'd share this bit from Gina, one of my fellow staffers at Snapecast who was at the event last night and has transcribed this from the recording she made while there..
Rushdie introduces himself and says his question is kind of a follow up to the last one (The little boy who asks how can Dumbledore possibly be dead).
Rushdie: It has always been made plain that Snape might be an unlikable fellow, but he was essentially one of the good guys. (Massive cheering) Dumbledore himself has always vouched for him. Now (unintelligible) Snape is a villain and Dumbledore’s killed. We cannot, or don’t, want to believe this. (Cheering and laughter). Our theory is that Snape is in fact still a good guy. We propose that Dumbledore can’t really be dead. That this in fact is a ruse, cooked up between Dumbledore and Snape to put Voldemort off his guard. Harry then will have more friends than he knows when he and Voldemort do face. So, is Snape good or bad? (Massive cheering). It’s plain to see, everything follows from this. (Cheering)
Jo: Your opinion, I would say, is right. However, I see I am going to have to be more explicit and say Dumbledore is definitely dead.
Felicity wrote: "A minority of readers is in a huff, and a minority of readers was in a huff after the release of HBP because their favorite "ship" -- Harry/Hermione -- was taken off the table. From what I understand, a similarly unhinged petition was started as a result of Rowling’s "treachery" in pairing Harry with Ginny."
Dummmmm - dum dum dum... DUMB!!
These people should go back into their fanfic bunkers and "go home and bite their pillows" a la Corky St. Clair.
I disagree slightly with Travis about the benefit of knowing as I commented on his post, but I get the point. It will probably preserve some folks from fantastically wrong theories. And yeah, there are too many things to be getting on with in the 7th book like when exactly is Trevor the Toad going to make his move and destroy the Dark Lord with the help of his faithful side-kick Aunt Petunia?
Felicity, I would say that she's letting the wrong-theory stuff get to her a little too much, especially thinking about the countless disgusting and distasteful fanfics out there. But I will grant this, the name "dumbledoreisnotdead.com" is a bit much because of how assertive it is. I supposed some of the Harry/Hermione crap is just as assertive, huh? Our stuff was never assertive like that; I posted Mirvink's theory in January then more recently Gumshoe's. I liked these theories because I couldn't come up with any on my own, though I tried. I'd keep running into "problems". Yes, you're right; tricking his friends was never Dumbledore's way.
I never thought that DD was faking death. My take is whether he was "walking dead" for most of HBP.
Now, I'm Catholic, so I add Mary to the list of those who never died. I understand others might not go for that. But there is another example: Enoch, from Genesis. He walked with the Lord, and then disappeared. I think appears only in that one verse, which leaves lots of questions about him...
Also, I don't think she meant people to question that DD is dead. He really had to die for narrative purposes (Harry has to stand on his own, thus Sirius and Dumbledore get kicked off), but it would really be cruel to hold out the hope that Dumbledore is still alive.
I think JKR takes it very personally when people propose theories that would make her malicious in her plotting. I don't think she's "spoiling" book 7 in any way to say that yes, what you saw - the death of Dumbledore and his funeral - was real. She doesn't need to shoot down every silly theory, but this one got pretty big.
Pauli--
As I understand it from comments left on Leaky and Mugglenet, Rowling did make a passing reference to fanfic, and it wasn'ta favorable one. She said something about weird pairings on online Potter fan sites and that she wasn't "going to go there,"
at which point members of the audience started shouting out various character pairings, and Rowling ignored them.
She didn't come right out and blast them from the stage, but I wouldn't have expected her to. She did not shut down the Faked Death Dumbledore theory with any real force until she had been asked about Dumbledore's death by two questioners in a row. The first was an eight year old who asked why Dumbledore had to die. The second was Salman Rushdie, who asked her point blank about the Faked Death Theory.
Moreover, fanfiction is fiction, and everyone knows Rowling didn't write it. The Dumbledoreisnotdead crowd are presenting theories of what they believed Rowling wrote herself and they were very aggressive in trying to win over other readers to their side. I agreed with Meep when she wrote, "I think JKR takes it very personally when people propose theories that would make her malicious in her plotting."
Meep, good call. I thought of Our Lady also, but remember, her Glorious Assumption occurred at the end of her earthly life as with Enoch and Elijah. So those on earth would still grieve the of their presence on "this middle-earth" even though they were special cases which did not suffer the severing of body and soul which the rest of us must endure. Merlin and I are both Catholics also, and I'm sure he just threw the Elijah reference in for a rhetorical flourish.
Felicity, thanks for pointing out all these things. I'm avoiding reading a lot of the transcripted details in an effort to rise above this, although I know my prior post didn't accomplish that very well. Like I said, JKR has retained all her class throughout this. I'm glad she is disgusted with the unnatural fanfic. And just to clarify; I have nothing against Salman Rushdie et al. And the eight-year-old's question is a GOOD question, best thing I've heard -- "ex ore intantium", you know. But I still maintain that this particular public event was a mistake, possibility a case of placing of cordiality over prudence.
I'll admit after consideration that some good will probably come of her clarifying remarks about Dumbledore.
(If this doubleposts, I apologize. It didn't seem to go through the first time.)
Was it Elijah? I thought it was Ezekiel.
Still, some of the hysteria over Dumbledore dying (and forget about Harry) reminds me of the "Little Nell incident" with Dickens and =The Old Curiousity Shop=. Dickens was big on child death in his plots (few saintly children make it out alive), and he had been foreshadowing Nell's death all along the book. She would stop in a churchyard (i.e. graveyard) to rest, she felt weak... I don't know if he stuck in the proverbial consumptive cough, but I wouldn't put it past him. People kept writing him letters, begging him to spare Little Nell.
Well, the last installation of the novel came, and there was hysteria. The most amusing story came from NYC, as the people lined the docks as the ship carrying the last number came in. "Is she dead?" the crowd cried. "Yes!" came the answer. And pandemonium. Unlike the mean people who spoiled the fun by shouting out that Snape killed Dumbledore, these people actually asked to be spoiled.
But the point is that Dickens had determined from the beginning that Little Nell was going to die. Dickens may have changed ideas as to the fate of certain characters, as they waxed and waned in popularity, but the main characters were determined from the beginning: this one will drown from a silly accident, this one will be brutally murdered, this one will do a murder-suicide thing... it was fixed. It was important to the story.
Little Nell had to die, as Sirius and Dumbledore had to die. Frodo and Gandalf had to leave Middle Earth. It's possible that Harry may have to die, but if he does, no amount of fan pleading will make JKR change her mind. She knows where the story is going to go, and what will need to happen to the main players. I think that Voldemort has to die, Snape likely will, and Harry is 50-50. Some of the story is figuring out why...I think one of the big things that we need to look for is why Lily Potter had to die.
I'm feeling a bit like an old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon that I particularly remember ... where everything is askew and Calvin is running around with his "narrative" going on how ever since his dad told him that he needed to be able to see the issue from both sides of the argument, eveything had lost all sense of perspective
Ie, I can see both sides of things on this, so I guess I'm in the middle ... I can see my side of "would rather not have known this far out," but that is in the context of not having put so much of myself into it as some of these people obviously have (meaning such as dumbldoreisnotdead.com) ... I thought it was possible, I really liked the slight of hand magic trick thing (which, as far as I'm concerned is still a possible intentional thing ... the "stoppered death theory" in which Snape had a hand in it but was not actively using the AK would fall under this category of slight of hand too)
Actually I was just having a cursory read of DDIND.COM and especially his reaction to the release on Tuesday (like I said, cursory reading) ... and I actually thought he handled it kind of well ...
"If this site makes a case for the belief that Snape helped Dumbledore fake his death for some as yet unknown reason, then it also makes an equal case for the belief that, if Dumbledore really is dead, then Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's order, as part of that unknown plan"
So, when I started this comment thinking that when I hopped over to DDIND.COM I would find one of the "ban petitioners" and was going to say (as per my intro of this comment) that, if people are this fanatical about it, I can see Travis' point too and the point that it would be actually more cruel to her fans and readers who vest this much in that theory NOT to disabuse them. Now that I have read some of DDIND.com, he doesn't seem to me like that crowd to me ... but still, from the ban petition Travis had samples from in his comments I think somebody actually does take it that seriously, and I can see the point that, as long as people are going to approach it like that, better to get it out in the open (I mean, after reading Granger's work on alchemy I would have maybe been a little dissappointed if Harry and Hermione had gotten together instead of Harry and Ginny and Ron and Hermione, which I think are the natural pairngs along the alchemical/symbolist reading ... but I wouldn't have hated Rowling or anything ... I mean, some of this "shipping wars" sounds like some of these people are way overboard)
On the level of stuff like "Betraying her fans!" accustations, my friend Dom had a good 1 liner response: "They call that betrayal of the fans? Have they seen the Star Wars Prequels? Now that was betrayal"
Oh, and Felicity, I agree with you and her on the "weird pairings" online/in fanfic and I respect her for simply "not going there" ... I'm not sure what to make of some of the fanfic at times ... there is some serious confusion aimless wandering in the world I guess.
Meeps, good to have you commenting :) Yeah I threw the Elijah thing in for a "capstone" kind of thing (it was Elijah, Elisha watches him go and receives his mantle as prophet) ... just mainly saying that it is rare that anyone ultimately escapes death, and if they do they don't "come back" and continue on here on earth forever, and resurrection properly involves some type of radical transformation (passing through locked doors but also eating fish? probably some dimensions of "physicality" we never would have dreamed of in a million years)... all of which is to say, we're all going to die someday unless the parousia comes (in which case some transformation of some sort is coming ... I doubt that Purgatory will be as comfortable, or at least indirectly painles LOL, as our current job situations or that Heaven will be as boring as them [for those who might be, as I once was, confused on the specifics of Purgatory - one is not going to Purgatory if one is not eventually going to Heaven]) ... and in the meantime, while I guess you could say that it would have been nicer for Harry to have DD pass away at a ripe older age after Harry had some years to know him as an adult(ie naturally die growing old vs dying this way), things are different in literature ... in real life our lives, including how we live in the knowledge of our own mortality, touches the lives of those around us over a period of time and through many processes etc ... in literature things are more pointed and concise, and the profound impact that DD's own approach to such things (mortality)will have on Snape and Harry takes place in a sudden event like whatever went on on top of that tower that will be unpacked in book 7. I don't think, however, that I stated all that very "concisely" just now, but, oh well, you do what you can LOL
Interesting though, how Pauli put it "separating body and soul" ... becuase we never see this happen to Sirius ... everything goes through the veil together ... I don't think, with the way things have been unfolding with all of the DDIND stuff that she would have Sirius "come back" but I think there may be something Harry has to resolve there (maybe Red Hen's thing about a "spirit journey" beyond the veil with my thing about the being on his knees with just his head through the veil, as forshadowed in book 5 with the noted descriptions of the sensation of bilocality in the "head in the fireplace" thing, and Sirius as a guide in how to unleash the portion of Voldy's soul that is in the scar and THEN Harry must bring Sirius' body back for burial ... as foreshadowed in the chiastically central book-4 incident of bringing Cedric's body back ... how's that for some wild speculation off the cuff, eh?)
But, lastly, on Granger's book ... I still plan to buy a copy if it does come out just because I hold stong on what I was saying about "expectational tensions" ... given her statements now, however, I don't think it would be necesarily intentional, but I think it still does operate and that such essays are worth checking out and reading and buying copies of books because I they do some good work in the text that uncover things that do contribute to the meaing, one way or the other
PS sorry for the extremely existentialist posting there ... early on I use DDIND.com as an example of "people who put a whole lot of themself, maybe too much, into a theory like this, and I forgot to change that before posting after actually looking at the guy's stuff ... should have changed it to the "ban" people
oh, and on Purgatory it was meant to be "indirectly painful" (vs directly painful)
Oh, and Meep ... I noticed I used the plural "s" on your name mistakenly ... Sorry, one guy I hung out with a fair bit while working on my MA had the last name "Meeks" ... I think my brain must have just went to that pattern
I definitely think the Horace Goldin (sp?) connection was intentional on Rowling's part, but I see it more as a link to Slughorn's theatrical nature (I loved his eulogy for Aragog while wearing a black cravat) and Slughorn's love of arranging dramatic moments (as when he pretended to have forgotten the cauldron of Felix) and his skill as an illusionist (as when he pretended to be an armchair) and his being a colleague of Albus Dumbledore (The Great Albini).
But I didn't agree at all with Gumshoe's argument that Dumbledore and Slughorn had switched places and found many of her supporting arguments for the switch were easily contradicted or too thin to be taken seriously. And I say this as a person aware of the vulnerabilities of my own theories.