I've read all seven books - all but the last many times. I think it's completely bizarre to make revelations about characters outside and apart from the content of the books. I'm wondering if there is even any precedent for it. My feeling is, if it's relevant, include it, if it isn't, why mention it? I agree with kendo, it doesn't really add any additional understanding of Dumbledore - I think she explores his character and past rather thoroughly in book 7.

I probably would prefer confining the knowledge of fictional characters to what's contained in the books, and not have things revealed through casual tidbits dropped by the author here and there. Now if she'd confirmed definitively something she'd already hinted at, that I would understand. But something which was never even mentioned in the books? In my opinion, it's just a weird thing to do.

Do you think any hints will appear in either of the last two movies? I doubt it, but you never know...

quote:

Originally posted by EricG75:
There was that one scene where Dumbledore was soliciting gay sex in the Ministry of Magic restroom...

Ok, this is my basic point, and it's mostly in response to kendo and blue. I agree with parts of what both of you said, but again I don't see the big issue.

First, as the "rugged" moderator pointed out, JKR probably has in depth portraits of all of her characters, far more in depth than has been revealed in the stories. It's natural that these characteristics come out when they're relevant.

Next, she was asked a question about the love life of one of her characters. I think it's obvious that the sexual orientation becomes a meaningful characteristic to this answer, especially since it'll be obvious assuming everyone knows who Grindelwald is.

I just don't see how that's an inappropriate response. Kendo himself said that the teacher's love life isn't necessary for a children's book. Hence, it isn't in the book. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that she should lie when asked about it. I guess my feeling is that it shouldn't change anybody's attitude towards Dumbledore(I assume it doesn't), and it shouldn't cause you to picture him having sex anymore than a revelation that he was straight. Quite simply, we wouldn't be having this conversation if she revealed he was straight, and that's where my argument begins.

Once again, I'll reiterate that I haven't read the books, so I could be on shaky ground.

quote:

Posted by PRG
I think what I meant was, it was not a responsible literary comment for this very reason.

Come on PRG, since when did writers have to make 'responsible literary comments.' Writers are our irrresponsible fellow travellers....to be otherwise, well, rules and responsibilities are for anything but art.
She was just idly chatting about background to a character. What would be a responsible comment anyway?
Don't stress man.

Currently re-reading Philip Pullman's The Subtle Knife.
Next to the Earthsea series, the Dark Materials trilogy rates as the best childrens fiction of the last 100 yrs, methinks.

stayed up late and finished Vernon God Little. Awesome. I'd e interested in reading some more stuff by DBC Pierre.
looks like i am moving on to Life of Pi. Apparently, i cannot get enough of Man Booker Prize winners.

edit: i would be interested in seeing some rugged good looks. link plz, kthanks.

quote:

Originally posted by happy_hooker:
stayed up late and finished Vernon God Little. Awesome. I'd e interested in reading some more stuff by DBC Pierre.
looks like i am moving on to Life of Pi. Apparently, i cannot get enough of Man Booker Prize winners.

edit: i would be interested in seeing some rugged good looks. link plz, kthanks.

You're right. Not the NBA, it was the Booker prize. I loved "Life of Pi." If you like anglo-indian literature, I recommend "The Death of Vishnu."

Even if it was idle chat, it is now going to color how people read the books.

I guess what I'm driving at is more of a threoretical idea that a character not actually existing beyond the text. Where there was a non-sexual character, now there is one, however concealed it may be. And for new readers, it is adding a new lense through which they may read the character of Dumbledore; a lense that was never meant to be.

Alright, I guess I'm done. I'm finishing up No Country For Old Men so I can hopefully see the film this weekend.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:

Ok, this is my basic point, and it's mostly in response to kendo and blue. I agree with parts of what both of you said, but again I don't see the big issue.

First, as the "rugged" moderator pointed out, JKR probably has in depth portraits of all of her characters, far more in depth than has been revealed in the stories. It's natural that these characteristics come out when they're relevant.

Next, she was asked a question about the love life of one of her characters. I think it's obvious that the sexual orientation becomes a meaningful characteristic to this answer, especially since it'll be obvious assuming everyone knows who Grindelwald is.

I just don't see how that's an inappropriate response. Kendo himself said that the teacher's love life isn't necessary for a children's book. Hence, it isn't in the book. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and that she should lie when asked about it. I guess my feeling is that it shouldn't change anybody's attitude towards Dumbledore(I assume it doesn't), and it shouldn't cause you to picture him having sex anymore than a revelation that he was straight. Quite simply, we wouldn't be having this conversation if she revealed he was straight, and that's where my argument begins.

Once again, I'll reiterate that I haven't read the books, so I could be on shaky ground.

Actually, I was thinking about this again and I realized she actually has been doing this all along to a certain extent. She's dropped tidbits and hints about the books as she's written them and also revealed things about the characters' future careers, etc. after book 7. So it isn't really atypical behavior for her; however, I am curious as to whether any other authors do this - I can't think of any off the top of my head.

quote:

Originally posted by blueskyoas:
I am curious as to whether any other authors do this - I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I wonder if that's because there isn't too much of a precedent for the media frenzy that surrounds Harry Potter. It's possible she's also just shrewd at generating attention.

quote:

Originally posted by MajorNougat:

quote:

Originally posted by blueskyoas:
I am curious as to whether any other authors do this - I can't think of any off the top of my head.

I wonder if that's because there isn't too much of a precedent for the media frenzy that surrounds Harry Potter. It's possible she's also just shrewd at generating attention.

With the way she is and handles herself, I wouldn’t put it past her.

I finished reading Kafka on the Shore. I've got some random thoughts I'll try to get out this evening, but for now I'll just say that I really enjoyed it. It was definitely strange, but well worth my time.

Do get back to us. I'm dying to hear what you thought. Talking cats, am I right? That's what did it for you?

The short summary: talking cats, oedipal complex, and sex. How can you go wrong?

The longer story:
The fast-paced, riveting plot alone was enough to drive a great story, but I found the struggles with abstract concepts like love, memories, dreams, ideas, fate, religion, time, etc. to be equally engaging. Those concepts frequently manifested themselves as tangible realities, but yet the perception of the concepts changed from person to person. For example, Kafka clearly took dreams very seriously. He didn't distinguish between reality and dreams, and felt as though he had raped Sakura because he had sex with her in a dream without her permission. To Sakura, this was nothing more than a "raunchy" dream. The dream was what each person made it. Likewise, Kafka viewed his "curse" as an inescapable reality. He didn't really leave home to escape it, so much as to dive head first into it. It's unclear if he actually fulfilled any of the predictions of the curse, but it is clear that his mind had to think he did. One of my favorite lines of the book hit on the perception of abstract concepts:

"Listen-God only exists in people’s minds. Especially in Japan, God’s always been kind of a flexible concept. Look at what happened after the war. Douglas MacArthur ordered the divine emperor to quit being God, and he did, making a speech saying he was just an ordinary person."

Anyways, I thought the way Murakami executed the manifestation of abstract concepts as concrete realities was near brilliant. I have more thoughts, but I'm having trouble organizing them. I tore through the book so quickly(probably too quickly) that the whole thing is still spinning in my head.

I'm so glad you liked it. It's always a bit unnerving to recommend a book, especially something as abstract as Murakami. You always worry that the person who picks it up on your recommendation is going to hate it.

The other book that I read and loved at roughly the same time as "Kafka..." was Kazuo Ishiguro's stunningly sad and beautiful "Never Let You Go." A very different read. More straightforward on the surface, but levels of depth to explore. Ishiguro is the author of "Remains of the Day," and, despite his name, quite British.

quote:

Originally posted by kendocubano:
Ishiguro is the author of "Remains of the Day," and, despite his name, quite British.

I think my favorite is The Unconsoled, but I haven't read Never Let You Go yet.

A couple of authors that you guys have often mentioned on here, Pynchon and Murakami, are two names that I recognize but have never read anything from. Can some of you offer up some suggestions on each of them and some background information on each one? The way you guys talk about them they seem to be essentials and although I am still caught up in Rowling—whom I think is essential!—I could ask for something by each of them for Christmas maybe.

Thanks guys, it’s great to know such smart people.

Hey guys, I was just wondering if you saw my above post. --^

I saw it. I'll try to post something today.

Hey FK. I wasn't ignoring you, but I wanted to answer your question seriously, and I wanted to think about it a bit. First, I'm curious about what you're looking for. If you're looking for essential books of the 20th (and into the 21st) century, then both authors certainly qualify, although I think there are more "essential" authors. Pynchon is clearly essential to the development of post-modernism, but I think DeLillo is equally so, and may be a somewhat better starting point.

Pynchon is best known for his book "Gravity's Rainbow," although I think "The Crying of Lot 49" (or was is "V"?) was his first novel. "Gravity's Rainbow" won the NBA in the year it was published, but failed to win the Pulitzer because it was deemed to be obscene and "unreadable." The book has hundreds of characters, and the plot jumps and skips all over the place. It takes place in London and France in the waning days of WWII. It has multiple narrators, who don't always identify themselves, and the whole point to the book is that you never see more than they do. In other words, we know the history of WWII, in retrospect, but you never know more than your narrator does about the events surrounding them. There's a healthy dollop of sex, and a lot of absurdity. The structures of the book are super arcane (tarot, Kabbala, astrology). It's a hell of difficult read, and, personally, I never felt that it was worth the effort. I recognize its importance, and certainly it influenced an enormous number of subsequent writers, including Don DeLillo, William Gibson, David Foster Wallace, Neil Stephenson. Parenthetically, I've enjoyed all of those authors more than Pynchon himself. To be fair, I read "Gravity's Rainbow" 25 to 30 years ago, and I could very well have been too young to read him.

If you're only going to read one of his books, I think it ought to be "Gravity's Rainbow." That is the book that will still matter 50 to 100 years ago. "Vineland" was a bit of a bust. "Crying of Lot 49" was entertaining enough, and not nearly as impenetrable as some of his later works. "Against the Day" is alright, but I found it too unfocused to be essential. I've never read "V" or "Mason & Dixon," but perhaps others can weigh in on them.

Murakami is a very different duck, both in terms of style, and importance. Where Pynchon is, like him or not, a writer for the ages, I think the final assessment on Murakami is still pending. He is very much a contemporary writer, and, although he has had some very imaginative and interesting works, I think his role in the canon is not yet assured. I like Murakami better than Pynchon, for what it's worth. (It's not worth much...)

Murakami's best known and best regarded work is "The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles." It takes off from an episode, where a slacker and his wife's cat goes missing. Weirdness accumulates rapidly thereafter. The book also has (as is characteristic of Murakami's books) graphic sex, and occasions of fairly graphic violence. This is the Murakami book to read, if you're only going to read one, since most of the elements that make him unique are there.

My favorite of his works is "Kafka on the Shore," and the good Major does a nice job of describing it above.

I know this is fragmented, and probably too editorial to be of any real value to you, but I hope it helps.

I know this sounds lazy, but for a summary of themes and styles concerning Pynchon, you should probably just visit Wikipedia. As far as where to start, I'd probably start with The Crying of Lot 49, which is his second book. From there, I would move on to Gravity's Rainbow and Mason & Dixon. Both require time, so if you don't have it, don't try to rush through them. After those, I'd read V.

My sentiments pretty much echo Kendo's when it comes to Murakami, even the recommendation of starting with The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle.

Thanks for the recommendations, suggestions and comments guys. I will look into each of those and let you know what I decide. Thanks again.