we don't need to make up stuff like claiming she only made Dumbledore gay to be seen as progressive
Heres a good place for you to start
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
Retroactive continuity , or retcon for short, is a literary device in which facts in the world of a fictional work that have been established through the narrative itself are adjusted, ignored, supplemented, or contradicted by a subsequently published work that recontextualizes or breaks continuity with the former.[2]
can you point out which facts in the fictional world of Harry Potter were established in Book 1-7 with regards to Dumbledore's sexuality?Dumbedlore exists as a character, who has new information provided by the author that adjusts and supplements the story, and recontextualizes the character and his story in previous works.
To change or clarify how the prior work should be interpreted.^ as a motivation in the wiki
Dumbedlore exists as a character, who has new information provided by the author that adjusts and supplements the story, and recontextualizes the character and his story in previous works.
so you just assumed he was a straight man with zero reference to the subject at all, in the entire book series?
so you just assumed he was a straight man with zero reference to the subject at all, in the entire book series?His sexuality was open to interpretation.
Dumbedlore exists as a character, who has new information provided by the author that adjusts and supplements the story, and recontextualizes the character and his story in previous works.
and also
^ as a motivation in the wiki
So now the character isnt just Dumbledore the wizard, hes Dumbledore the gay wizard.
His sexuality was open to interpretation.
His sexuality was open to interpretation.
So was Snapes before we knew of his Lily obsession.
So was Snapes before we knew of his Lily obsession.I think the main difference there is whether it happened in story or not.
that doesn't even confirm his sexuality, just his ..love/obsession
because it was never mentioned at all.And mentioning it after the fact recontextualizes the character and his story, aka retroactive continuity.
Heres a good place for you to startLiterally every example in that article is about altering or ignoring something in a previous work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
Literally every example in that article is about altering or ignoring something in a previous work.And Dumbledore was altered, what was open for interpretation is no longer, if you accept Rowlings ramblings as canon.
And Dumbledore was altered, what was open for interpretation is no longer, if you accept Rowlings ramblings as canon.This is fucking embarrassing and you should really stop now while you're still above ground.
I think the main difference there is whether it happened in story or not.
Snape's thing has buildup and payoff throughout the series, but this is completely disconnected from the story and mentioned several years after the fact
This is fucking embarrassing and you should really stop now while you're still above ground.
What's the book that describes young Albus and Grindelwald? That makes it pretty clear what his sexuality is without stating it. And the one before does a good job hinting at it.6?
Are you gay if youre a trans man who likes cis men ?If you are a man who exclusively likes other men, youre gay, yes.
Im confused.
Reframing or adding to past events to serve a current plot need. Take the page image: a pre-existing space elevator is in the city, but one did not appear to exist earlier in the work despite the fact that a building reaching up into space would be plain to see in any wide shot. However the current story requires a space elevator, so it's been added and treated as if it's always been there.
In its most basic form, a retcon is any plot point or detail that was not intended from the beginning, but treated as if it always had been (contrast this with The Reveal, where the author usually intended such an addition from the beginning). The most preferred use is where it contradicts nothing, even though it was changed later on. An ideal retcon clarifies a question alluded to without adding excessive new questions.
While the term comes from comic books, dating to All-Star Squadron #18 in 1983 and shortened to "retcon" by the end of the decade, the technique is much older. Often, it's used to serve a new plot by changing its context or expanding an existing setting; however, it's also done when the creators are caught writing a story that violates continuity and isn't very plausible.
See also Ass Pull, which is something that was not properly set up before it is sprung on the audience, and Cliffhanger Copout, in which a perilous situation is retroactively changed to allow the characters to escape. It is related to Deus ex Machina. Some, but not all retcons are Ass Pulls, and a good retcon can actually improve the current narrative. A good way to get away with a retcon is to reveal new implications or motivations for events that have already been established.
Smoother retcons won't be distinguishable as such, and can even make what was initially an Ass Pulllater look like everything was Just as Planned. (In other words, No Prize it into plausibility and away from the dizzying realm of the Ass Pull.)
The retcon is considered by many to occur when current events contradict the past continuity of the series and is evidence of a Writer on Board. Perhaps more often, the retcon does not actually violate Canon, but rather violates fanon, the set of unstated interpretations usually made by the audience (an interpretation violated this way is said to be Jossed). Most competent writers achieve a retcon by relying on a less-obvious but still perfectly valid interpretation of what was previously seen.
Harry also doesn't shit in the books but we can assume he does. Like I said, Dumbledore being gay was something many readers had already theorized before she confirmed it.I'm not making anything up. There's nothing in the text that says Dumbledore is gay. I don't know why she claimed he was gay after she was finished writing the series. She created the series, presumably she had ample opportunity to include that aspect of his character, but she decided not to. Why do you think that is?
My point is that Rowling's a piece of shit for many racist and transphobic reasons, we don't need to make up stuff like claiming she only made Dumbledore gay to be seen as progressive to make her look bad.
Glad to see we have a few eager beavers ready for some literary learning!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Retcon
It also wasn't really this. Dumbledore being gay didn't have anything to do with the story and she just answered when someone directly asked if he'd ever been in love with someone. This was back in the early 2000s when a gay character in a children's story was insanely progressive and more likely to hurt sales than help them .
Here's something to think about: would anyone be calling this a retcon if JKR revealed that Dumbledore was straight instead? Somehow, I doubt it.