many faces of albus dumbledore in the setting of fan writing ...

MANY FACES OF ALBUS DUMBLEDORE IN THE SETTING OF FAN WRITING:

THE TRANSFORMATION OF READERS INTO “READER-WRITERS” AND THE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR PRESENCE IN THE AGE OF ONLINE FANDOM

by

Midori Fujita

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF ARTS

in

The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

(Children’s Literature)

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)

October 2014

© Midori Fujita, 2014

ii

Abstract

This thesis examines the dynamic and changing nature of reader response in the time of

online fandom by examining fan reception of, and response to, the character Dumbledore in J.K.

Rowling’s Harry Potter series. Using the framework of reader reception theory established by

Wolfgang Iser, in particular Iser’s conception of textual indeterminacies, to construct my critical

framework, this work examines Professor Albus Dumbledore as a case study in order to

illuminate and explore how both the text and readers may contribute to the identity formation of

a single character. The research examines twenty-one selected Internet-based works of fan

writing. These writings are both analytical and imaginative, and compose a selection that

illuminates what aspect of Dumbledore’s characters inspired readers’ critical reflection and

inspired their creative re-construction of the original story. This thesis further examines what the

flourishing presence of Harry Potter fan community tells us about the role technological progress

has played and is playing in reshaping the dynamics of reader response. Additionally, this

research explores the blurring boundaries between authors and readers in light of the blooming

culture of fan fiction writing. The themes that Harry Potter fan writers have addressed imply that

subjects of morality, sexuality, failures, amend-making, and questions of individual agency

versus societal constraints are important issues with which contemporary readers of Harry Potter

stories are drawn to explore. Harry Potter, by virtue of being one of the most fervently read text

in the last decade provides a valuable insight what reading and literature may mean to ordinary

people in their everyday lives.

iii

Preface

This Master’s thesis is original, unpublished, independent work by the author, M. Fujita.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii

Preface............................................................................................................................................ iii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. v

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi

Dedication ..................................................................................................................................... vii

1. Origin of Research Interest, Rationale and Significance .......................................................... 1

2. Research Statement ................................................................................................................... 3

3. Literature Review...................................................................................................................... 5 3. 1. Iserʼs Reader Response Theory .......................................................................................... 6 3. 2. The Rise of Social Media and its Implication to Reader Response Theory ..................... 15 3. 3. Dumbledore the Philosopher-King ................................................................................... 20 3. 4. Dumbledore’s Fall from the Pedestal ............................................................................... 22 3. 5. Dumbledore’s Sexuality ................................................................................................... 27 3. 6. Reader-reception and the Question of Authorial Ownership ........................................... 33 3. 7. Reader-reception Observed through Henry Jenkins’ Study on Fan Fiction Writing ....... 35

4. Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 43 4. 1. Dataset and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 45 4. 2. Fan Sites Under Discussion .............................................................................................. 47

5. Examination of Selected Analytical Writings by Fans ........................................................... 50 5. 1. Omnipotent and Benevolent, God-like Dumbledore ........................................................ 52 5. 2. Dumbledore as a Moral Icon ............................................................................................ 53 5. 3. Secrets and Lies, Authority and Control—Dumbledore’s Moral Ambiguity .................. 56 5. 4. Dumbledore For the Greater Good ................................................................................... 60 5. 5. Concluding Thoughts on Fans’ Analytical Writing ......................................................... 65

6. Examination of Selected Creative Writings Posted by Fans .................................................. 67 6. 1. Dumbledore—A Friend and a Protector .......................................................................... 71 6. 2. Dumbledore – the Young and the Restless ...................................................................... 74 6. 3. Dumbledore and the Price of his Love ............................................................................. 76 6. 4. The Gay Dumbledore ....................................................................................................... 81 6. 5. Concluding Thoughts on Fans’ Creative Writing ............................................................ 82

7. Conclusions and Opportunities for Further Studies ................................................................ 85 7.1 Implications of the Study: The Controversy of Authorship and Authority ........................86 7. 2. Concluding Thoughts ....................................................................................................... 96

Works Cited .................................................................................................................................. 99

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................... 111

v

List of Tables

Table 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 2. ......................................................................................................................................... 70

vi

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Teresa Dobson, for her inspiration, support,

guidance and meticulous editorial suggestions. I would also like to thank the other member of

my committee, Dr. Eric Meyers, for his insight and support.

I am also grateful to my primary peer reviewers, PhD candidate Claire Ahn and M.A.

candidate Roberta Loo, as well as my copy editors at The Writing Room for their editorial

reviews and suggestions.

Special gratitude is owed to my parents; their support throughout my years of education

has provided me with courage and opportunity to pursue my academic passion.

My final word of thanks is owed to my partner, who asked me the fundamental question

that is at the core of this thesis: “Why do you study literature?”

vii

Dedication

I dedicate this work in the memory of my grandfather, Sho-ichiro Baba,

a dedicated railway man, an avid reader and passionate mountaineer from Hokkaido, Japan,

whose greatest regret in life was not having had the chance to gain a University education.

1

1. Origin of Research Interest, Rationale and Significance

The story of Harry Potter has captured the hearts of many readers worldwide, creating

strong emotional connections between the story, the characters, and its readers in the process.

Magic begins to flow into Harry Potter’s ordinary and mistreated life with the arrival of a (single

unexpected) letter, and this magic also flowed for millions of readers. As Harry delights in

learning all things magical, readers of the book may share in the same great sense of joy,

freedom, and exhilaration Harry feels at discovering this strange and fantastical world. The

humour and imagination J. K. Rowling employs in creating this magical world give the story a

loving and playful quality. In her MA thesis, The Harry Potter Phenomenon and its Implications

for Literacy Education, Jadranka Novosel argues that the readers’ love for Harry Potter has been

made visible, communicable and shared through the expansion of the Internet and the emergence

of online communities such as various Harry Potter fan websites (Novosel 1, 64-65; Grossman

n.pag.). Readers do not only enjoy Harry Potter books in the solitary act of reading, but also

break out of that isolation and share their love and passion for the story in participatory online

spaces.

My initial research focus was to examine morality in the Harry Potter series through

Rowling’s conception of love, which she portrays as the most powerful force against evil.

However, my interest shifted as I began to realise that it was not possible to gauge the impact the

books have had on readers without examining readers’ responses to the stories. It was my

impression that doing otherwise would be but to form conjectures, it would be an incomplete

examination and observation of the phenomenon that is the Harry Potter series. In the realm of

the Internet, readers’ responses are made visible to fellow readers and also have the potential to

reach the authors of the original stories. It is safe to observe that social media has markedly

2

changed practices of reception and reader response to literary texts. Thus, Internet-based online

fandom and fan writing—both analytical and imaginative—are important fields of research for

those who are interested in examining literary reception and the production of reader response. In

this thesis, I examine how the Harry Potter series has inspired readers’ imagination and

compelled them to exercise their creativity as well as their analytical ability in response to the

story. During this process of reader response, which consists of readers’ critical reflection,

accompanied by creative or analytical writing, readers now become writers—reader-writers as it

were—in response to a story.

Readers employ a number of forms in responding: to point out some apparent forms, they

may a) analyse the text critically; b) articulate personal response (e.g., explain what the books

and characters have meant to them in their lives; how a certain book has affected them in coping

with life, helped them in understanding themselves, and/or given them courage to take on

adventures.): or readers may c) respond in a creative way (e.g., short story, video posts, musical

compositions). While my investigation of reader response for this thesis is limited to readers’

written response to a text with varying degrees of the above mentioned three principal elements,

a number of multimodal responses are evident: video trailers, images, and dramatizations, for

example, come to mind. What ordinary (one may call recreational) readers focus on in the text

may be different from what academics take up. Ultimately, reader response offers valuable

insight into what reading and literature may mean to ordinary people in their everyday lives. By

studying what kind of impact a character or a story could have on readers, we are better able to

study how books may contribute to the emotional, moral, and critical maturity and growth of an

individual.

3

2. Research Statement

This thesis will explore the dynamic and changing nature of reader response in the time

of online fandom by examining the fan reception of, and response to, the character Dumbledore

in the Harry Potter series. In her article titled “Critical Essay—ʻand the Story Goes On . . . ʼ:

Harry Potter and Online Fan Fiction,” Vandana Saxena points out that the decade in which

Harry Potter series was published was also a decade in which technological progress changed

the way readers could engage with a book. As Saxena argues, “[t]he advent of the Internet has

played a major role in reshaping the dynamics of fandom and fan communities” (Saxena n.pag.)

and, I would add, forever changed the face of reader reception to a literary text.

This thesis will pay particular attention to reader response in three key social media sites

where Harry Potter fans post materials: The Leaky Cauldron, Mugglenet, and FanFiction.Net.

The Harry Potter series has been selected as the emblematic literary case for this study because

the publication of the series spans from 1997 to 2007, a time period which—as Novosel points

out—uniquely parallels the timeline of the rise of online fandom within social media

environments. While recognising the vast scope of areas that are available for examination for

such a topic, for the purpose of this MA thesis, I focus on examinations of fan response to a

single character: the all-powerful and benevolent philosopher-king and Headmaster, Professor

Dumbledore. Some of the key moments of exchange between Rowling and the readerssuch as

Rowling’s exposé of Dumbledore’s homosexualityhave centred on the character of

Dumbledore, whom, Rowling has stated, often represents her authorial voice in the narrative

(Mzimba). Thus, an examination of how Dumbledore’s decisions and identity appear at key

moments, as well as how these moments could have been negotiated and interpreted between

Rowling and readers, or between the text and reader response to it, is a constructive avenue for

4

the exploration of the topic proposed. The framework that I use for this analysis is largely based

on a framework of reader reception theory established by Wolfgang Iser, and his theory is

closely discussed in the literature review. While Iser’s theory is used as a basis for my

investigation, it is a theory developed before the advent of online fandom. Therefore, I am also

interested to know how Iser’s theory could be applied to todays’ readers, many of whom find

their voice as readers in the online realm.

5

3. Literature Review

My initial research revealed that, while there has been a variety of studies about the

Harry Potter books from plethora of angles, there is a gap when it comes to connecting reader

response theory to the world of online fandom created by Harry Potter readers. Reader response

theory gained prevalence in the 1970s and 1980s and is characterised by its focus on readers as

an essential part of literature’s value (Hawkins 410; Poyas 63). Patricia Harkins, in “The

Reception of Reader-Response Theory,” states that readers response theorists are characterised

by the primary question they ask upon examining literary experience: “what actually happens

when a person encounters a text?” (Harkin 410). Harkins distinguishes reader-response theory

from reception theory and defines the two as follows: reader response theory deals with a more

general account of what happens when individual readers engage with a text, while reception

theorists inquire into how a given text affects readers who fall into specific classes (such as

women, working people in a certain area, or people who live in formerly colonialized part of the

world) (Harkin 410-1). Harkins points to one of the leading reader-response theorists, Wolfgang

Iser, noting that “Iser’s . . . emphasis on the transactional character of reading [is] particularly

popular” (Harkin 412-3), because it simultaneously allows for both the validity of authorial

intention and an act of meaning making on the part of readers, who are working with a text

within the textual confines of unknowable authorial intention (Harkin 412-3).

While there are many reader response literary theorists who have approached the subject

of reader-text relationship from various angles (e.g., David Bleich, Norman Holland, Stanley

Fish), in this thesis, my focus is on the theoretical framework provided in Wolfgang Iser’s

writings on reader response theory. Iser conceptualises readers to be outside the confines of their

historical and societal situations and this universal notion of readers is more suitable for

6

examining responses to Harry Potter books in online fan venues. This is because, in the online

settings, it is not possible to determine with any certainty the respondents’ identities.

Furthermore, Iserʼs conceptualisation of gaps and indeterminacies in a literary text provides a

suitable starting point for the examination of fan fiction stories, through which readers endeavour

to tell an untold story, challenging the boundaries presented by the original text (Iser,

“Interaction” 57;; Freund 147;; Alter).

I have selected one of the most enigmatic characters in the Harry Potter books, Professor

Dumbledore, as a case study in order to illuminate how both the text and readers may contribute

to the identity formation of a singular character. To make the project manageable within the

context of an MA thesis, I examine four key attributes of Dumbledore’s character: a)

Dumbledore as the all-powerful and benevolent philosopher-king, the Gandalf of the story who

offers wise words to conclude each volume (Teare 339-40); b) Dumbledore as a cold and

calculating war general who keeps the grand strategy to himself; c) Dumbledore as a man who

has been haunted by the ghosts of his past (Rowling, Deathly Hallows); d) Dumbledore as a

queer character (Gendler 143). These unique aspects of Dumbledore’s character are revealed in

the texts, and also play a significant role in communication between fans, reader-writer and

Rowling outside of the books. Sections 3, 4, and 5 examine these four key moments respectively.

Notably, the last aspect, Dumbledore as a queer character, has raised turmoil among readers with

regards to the rightful place of authorial input post-publication and this issue is discussed in

Section 6 of this chapter.

3.1. Iserʼs Reader Response Theory

Patrocinio Schweickart and Elizabeth Flynn state that reader response theory emerged in

the 1970s and 1980s among literary theorists who wanted to examine “the various roles the

7

subjectivity of the reader play in the production of the meaning of the text” (3). Fundamentally,

as Andrew Bennett argues, reader response theorists endeavour to bring light to these two

questions: “[w]ho makes meaning?” (3) and “[w]here is meaning made?” (3). Vincent Leitch

states that while a spectrum of theorists can be housed under the roof of reader response

criticism, one common argument they share is their criticism of the text-centred investigation of

formalist theorists (Leitch 33). Instead, reader response theorists bring our attention to reader-

orientated approaches in which texts can be understood as something dynamic and organic where

the convergence of texts and the readers’ responses to texts create meaning (Leitch 33). Leitch

perceives this shift of focus from texts to the dynamic relationship between texts and readers as

the shift to understand “[literature as] process, not product” (Leitch 36). Leitch explains,

“[m]eaning is an event, something that happens not on the page, where we are accustomed to

look for it, but in the interaction between the flow of print (or sound) and the actively mediating

consciousness of a reader-hearer” (Leitch 36). Some reader response theorists are influenced by

the philosophy of phenomenology as well as by theorists such as Roman Ingarden, whose ideas

later had a strong influence on Iser. Ingarten suggests that “[t]he act of reading is a concretisation

of the consciousness of the author: like a musical score, it has intention and form, but is only

realised in the act of performance” (Green and LeBihan 188). Following this train of thought that

takes us away from the text and the author, Keith Green and Jill LeBihan describe the emergence

of reader response theory as the death of the author-god (207).

Andrew Bennett presents reading as an escape where readers are able to remove

themselves from the world, from here and now (5). Bennett describes the processes of reading as

a “dissolution of the borders of self, world and book” (5). When engaged in the activity of

reading, readers may invite unfamiliar thoughts into their minds, thus “discover[ing] an inner

8

world of which we hitherto [have] not been conscious’” (Freund 146). Furthermore, Bennett also

points out that an individual reader is also a “multiple” reader at the same time, for upon each re-

read, a reader may discover a new perspective and make different meanings of the text (Bennett

4). Kathleen Malu concurs with Bennett on this point that readers construct different meanings

and have different experiences each time they re-read a text (77). Malu further emphasises that

there is “no one right way to read a text” (77) because “readers make connections to their past

experiences and create their own meaning from the written word” (77). With the shift of focus

from texts and authorial intentions to readers and various meanings they make, reader response

theorists endeavour to examine what it is exactly that happens when readers engage in the

activity of reading. Reader response theorists, for instance, look at readers themselves and how

their personal histories and individuality influence and bias their reading as well as how a text

allows for different reception from each reader (Schweickart and Flynn 5; Schlaeger 316). An

important point here is that reader response theorists, unlike text/author-intent orientated

theorists, do not look at the subjectivity of readers as something negative that must be eliminated

with care (Schweickart and Flynn 5).

As mentioned above, in this thesis, I rely on Wolfgang Iser’s conception of the reader-

text relationship as a key literary theory that is particularly relevant in the examination of Harry

Potter books and Harry Potter online fandom. Admittedly, when Iser first developed his reader

response theory in the 1970s, readers did not have access to computers and online communities.

However, I believe that Iserʼs theory is quite relevant for the purpose of this thesis’ investigation

because his understanding of literary text as a convergence point of reader-author intercourse is

oddly applicable to how online fandom functions today (Iser, “Reading” 280). Iser

conceptualises a literary text as “something like an arena in which reader and author participate

9

in a game of the imagination” (emphasis added) (“Reading” 280). Social media spaces such as

Mugglenet may be viewed as arenas in which that game of the imagination is made explicit. Iser

points out that, when readers truly engage their creativity and imagination with a literary text, the

text becomes their temporary reality (“Reading” 280, 284), allowing readers a chance to

experience thoughts and feelings they otherwise might not in their real lives (Schlaeger 320-1).

Jurgen Schlaeger theorises that Iser perceives literature as humanity’s feeble attempt at desiring

to know the unknowable and articulating matters that are unsayable, an attempt at offering its

readers “the chance to transcend their limitedness . . . [albeit] in the provisionality of

fictionalizing” (Schlaeger 320). In other words, Iser sees the true value of a literary text in this

coming together of readers’ imagination with a text, with literary texts offering readers an

opportunity for transcending the limited experiences and understanding of the self (“Reading”

284-5; Schlaeger 321). Online fandom seems to offer readers a space in which the literary arena

is populated not just by the singular reader and author, but by multiple, plural readers and

authors. By examining fan activities, particularly fan writings on online fan sites, I endeavour to

identify how the participatory culture and community created by fans extend the notion of

reading that Iser presents—namely, the notion of the literary text as an arena of imagination.

To put Wolfgang Iser in context of other reader response theorists, I turn to Yangling

Shiʼs “Reviews of Wolfgang Iser and His Reception Theory,” in which Iser’s theory is examined

alongside Romance-scholar Hans Robert Jauss (Shi 982). Unlike the then mainstream studies of

literary theory, which focused solely on the authorial intent and the texts, both scholars were

concerned with bringing the literary theorists’ attention towards the text-reader relationship (Shi

982). However, while Jauss was concerned with how the historical, cultural, and social

background of readers affected their interpretations of the texts, Iser took a more

10

phenomenological approach, showing interest in how an individual makes connections with a

text outside the confines of one’s historical and cultural boundaries (Shi 982). Criticizing the

traditional formalist approach, which asserts that textual meaning can be clarified and made

known to readers only through vigorous examination of the text and authorial intent, Iser argues

that meaning can be actualised through a reader who makes a connection between the text and

oneself (Shi 982). Through such re-evaluation of the act of reading by reader response theorists,

the traditional approach that understood texts to be the only valid object of examination is

displaced by a different method of investigation. This new method is one where an act of reading

is taken to be an important focal point of literary investigation (Shi 982). Unlike Jauss who, as

noted earlier, is more concerned with situating readers in a historical and cultural background, or

Norman Holland, who is concerned with empirically examining a particular reader’s response to

a particular text, Iser imagines readers in a more abstract sense (Shi 983-4). That is, Iser’s

readers are predisposed to be affected by a written text even when we consider them outside the

confines of their historical and cultural situations because to be affected by literary creations is

something intrinsic in human culture (Shi 983-4; Schlaeger 316-7).

Shi notes that Iser draws upon the theory of J. L. Austin and perceives the act of reading

as a process in which “the author’s words . . . provid[e] instructions to the reader, who [then] acts

to fill in the gaps and blanks inevitably encountered in any serious literary text” (Shi 984). These

“gaps, blanks, indeterminacies and the in-between status of literary texts” (Shi 984) occupy a

central place in Iser’s conception of reader-text relationship (Shi 984). According to Iser, the

literary work is truly meaningful to human life when meaning is created though the collaboration

between a text and readers, where the text is the author’s imaginative contribution and readers

give their imaginative contribution in a more dynamic and fluid manner through their act of

11

reading (Shi 983). In regard to these textual indeterminacies, Elizabeth Freund brings to our

attention that, under Iserʼs conceptualisation, a text neither defends itself against a reader’s

misinterpretations, nor does it present a reader with a clearly defined meaning (Freund 146).

Because of this particular quality, readers in Iserʼs theory are enabled to read between the lines,

give voice to unwritten parts of the story and fill in the unspoken words for characters (Freund

146). This, of course, is exactly what reader-writers do in the realm of online fandom: we might

say they enact the act of reading as described by Iser. In sum, Iser believes the process of

meaning-making of a literary text is actualised through an intricate interaction between a text and

a reader, “a mutually restrictive and magnifying interaction between explicit and the implicit,

between revelation and concealment” (Iser 24). It should be noted that Iser suggests that the

written words of a text impose certain limitations on manifolds of possible interpretations and

thus what is explicitly written prevents the unwritten yet implied meaning of the text from

becoming infinite (Iser 51). In short, while hidden gaps within a text inspire readers to bridge

those gaps, in what possible ways these gaps can be bridged is controlled to some extent by what

texts reveal to readers (Iser 24). Arguably, these constraints texts impose upon readers prevents

Iser’s reader response theory from becoming too all-encompassing and slipping into what one

may call an “all readings are correct” approach (Freund 146).

In “The Peripatetic Reader: Wolfgang Iser and the Aesthetics of Reception,” Elizabeth

Freund observes above that, for Iser, the gaps and uncertainties a literary text presents open

doors for an interpreting reader to engage their creative imagination and become co-authors of

the literary work in question (Freund 147). In “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism,”

Jane Tompkins likewise suggests that Iser perceives readers “as co-creator[s] of the [literary]

work” (xv), who in the processes of reading supply a part of the story “which is not written but

12

only implied [in a text]” (xv). As repeated above, Iser maintains that a true value of a literary

work is actualised in the process of reader responsein the process of textual possibilities taking

one particular shape upon a moment of meaning-making in the hands of a reader (Tompkins xv).

Tompkins argues that reader response theorists such as Iser have brought reader response of a

literary text into critical prominence; more significantly still, they have successfully established

and bestowed value in the process of reading rather than the literary text itself (Tompkins xvi).

With regards to the author-reader relationship, Iser speculates that some writers

deliberately leave room for readers’ imagination—perhaps as a sign of respect for the readers’

understanding (“Interaction” 50). Iser uses the metaphor of two people looking up at the night

sky making out different images in the same group of stars (“Interaction” 57). In Iser’s own

words, “[t]he ‘stars’ in a literary text . . . [are] fixed;; the lines that join them are variable”

(“Interaction” 57). In other words, it is in the hands of individual readers to connect the dots

provided by the text in a way that makes sense to them. Iser expands on this point and goes

further, asserting that reading is “a pleasure” (“Interaction” 51) when the act of reading compels

the readers to employ their imagination and work through the knots of dots and gaps the text

provides (“Interaction” 51). In the later chapters of this thesis, I examine how online venues that

are readily accessible for readers as an arena in which they share their literary experiences with

fellow readers take the imaginative act of reading further. Markedly, the birth of the participatory

culture within the Harry Potter fan community required great collaboration among readers across

many borders to connect with each other and share their understandings and passion; in

conjunction with these readers’ desire to come together, many of these readers utilise the avenue

of online fan sites as a catalyst to become writers of the story they so love.

13

Iser makes an excellent point when he quotes Virginia Woolf’s observation on the

writing style of Jane Austin and how Austin’s texts illuminate “[t]he extent to which the

‘unwritten’ part of a text stimulates the reader’s creative participation” (“Interaction” 51):

Jane Austen is thus a mistress of much deeper emotion than appears upon the

surface. She stimulates us to supply what is not there. What she offers is,

apparently, a trifle, yet is composed of something that expands in the reader’s

mind and endows with the most enduring form of life scenes which are outwardly

trivial. . . . The turns and twists of the dialogue keep us on the tenterhooks of

suspense. Our attention is half upon the present moment, half upon the future.

And when, in the end, [a protagonist] . . . behaves in such a way as to vindicate

our highest hopes of her, we are moved as if we had been made witnesses of a

matter of the highest importance. Here, indeed, in this unfinished and in the main

inferior story, are all the elements of Jane Austen’s greatness. It has the

permanent quality of literature (emphasis added). (Woolf)

Drawing on Virginia Woolf’s observation of Jane Austin, Iser explains that when a gap

arises from a seemingly trivial dialogue, such a gap inspires readers to fill in the unwritten part

(“Interaction” 51). Iser states that, in such cases, readers are “drawn into the events and made to

supply what is meant from what is not said [and] [w]hat is said only appears to take on

significance as a reference to what is not; it is the implications and not the statements that give

shape and weight to the meaning” (“Interaction” 51). A literary work’s true value does not lie

solely upon the original literary text itself, nor does it exclusively lie upon the multiple

possibilities of readers’ creation (the interpreted and changed version of the text), but it is

discovered within the process of the former inspiring the latter (Iser, “Interaction” 50).

14

Revisiting the argument that is briefly mentioned above with regards to a relationship

between a reader and a text in the moment of reading, reader response theorists such as Iser

observe that the extraordinary power of a book lies in how the barriers between a reader and a

text fall apart as a reader gets inside the story and the text’s reality become that of a reader

(Freund 137; Iser, “Reading” 280, 284). Freund argues in her review of Iser’s works that for

reader response theorists such as Iser, a book is an “inert object” (137) with “mute materiality”

(137); a book requires reading consciousness to intervene in order for its actualisation as

something more organic and dynamic (Freund 137). Freund eloquently explains that when “a

book has entered the shelter of the reader’s innermost self and the reader begins to play host to

this other consciousness, an astonishing intimacy develops in which the barriers between subject

and object fall away” (Freund 137). In other words, for Iser, when readers open themselves up

and are caught in the midst of a literary text, their own sense of present is overtaken by the

immediate experience of the text and for the moment, the text becomes their present

(“Interaction” 64). In a sense, the fictional illusion of a story, however transient, becomes their

mental reality during the process of reading (“Interaction” 64). Iser states, “something happens to

us [readers]” (Iser, “Interaction” 65) during a process of reading, but readers cannot know

objectively what transformations they undergo in the course of that process (“Interaction” 64).

Iser points out that, due to our incapacity to carry out an impartial examination from outside of

our own consciousness of what happens to us during the course of reading, we often turn to other

readers in order to discuss and compare the experiences—especially when a book touches us

deeply (“Interaction” 64). Such discussions, Iser believes, bring aspects of a text to readers’

consciousness that would otherwise stay buried in their subconscious (“Interaction” 64). In this

era, online fan sites allow readers to post their responses to a text and receive feedback: here, the

15

process of communication among readers that Iser discusses above is made visible to observers.

A field of observation, as it were, is offered for students of reader response theory in the age of

the Internet when it is possible for readers to create a participatory community around a

particular literary text, where dialogues between readers and even between an author and readers

is made possible due to the power of the Internet (Borah 344).

3.2. The Rise of Social Media and its Implication to Reader Response Theory

Jadranka Novosel rightly notes that fan-produced stories have possibly existed for as long

as story-telling itself has existed in a shape of oral narratives (Novosel 56); in a way, the minute

a reader or a listener wonders and asks the question what if, vast possibilities of fan-fictions

spring into being (Novosel 57-8). Yet, as Bronwen Thomas points out in an article titled “What

Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about It?”, it is only recently with

the expansion of the Internet and its immersion within the population that fans have gained the

ability to connect with vast communities of people who share the same interests and to receive

immediate feedback to their comments or stories (2). In Thomas’s own words, “fanfiction

remained a daily underground and marginalized activity until the advent of digital technologies

and the [Internet]” (Thomas 2). The most notable point Thomas makes here is that with the

expansion of the Internet, clear boundaries between authors and readers have started to blur and

at times are challenged (2). For instance, dialogues between an author and readers through a

book’s official website have brought a new angle to an investigation of the relationship between

a text and readers (Thomas 15-6). Thomas calls for having a closer look at “what fans do with

their texts” (Thomas15) because such an investigation illuminates what motivates readers to

respond to literary texts (Thomas 15-6). On readers, Thomas notes that fans prefer “continuity . .

. over closure” (10) in regards to their favourite texts;; in a sense, readers’ participation in the

16

creative process, by contributing fan fiction for example, is a way of expressing their desire to

keep a literary text alive as long as possible as an eternal “work in progress” (Thomas 9).

The second most influential source for this research is that of Vandana Saxena, who

examines how the expansion of online fan activities blurs the strict distinction between an author

and a reader (Saxena n.pag.). In many ways, Saxena observes, online fandom, especially

fanfiction sites, have “undo[ne] the binary distinction between the writer and the reader” (Saxena

n.pag.). In light of this blurring boundary between readers and writers, Saxena looks at online

fandom as “a site of defiance, deviance and resistance where young fans negotiate through the

gaps in the official story line and open the text to the demands of individual readership and

concerns” (Saxena n.pag.). For example, readers imagine the past, alternative present, and

various futures for different characters and in this “endless play of narratives, the source text is

constantly deconstructed, its apparatus taken apart and reassembled with new meanings supplied

by the fans and fan communities” (Saxena n.pag.). In response to the process of textual

deconstruction and re-creation, questions of authorial authority (note the sense of ownership

implicit in the root “author”) and the potentiality of readers’ authorship (creative liberty), along

with questions of how these issues have been greatly affected and meaning changed by the

spread of technology, have arisen (Saxena n.pag.).

Saxena further observes that the traditional power dynamic between adult authors and

child readerswhere control lies in the hands of adult creatorshas been disrupted by the influx

of Internet fan space that bridged what used to be a clear-cut divide between adult-authors and

child readers (Saxena n.pag.). What Saxena perceives as crucial is how the Internet has created a

place for young readers to escape from adult supervision as well as censure from the eyes of

others and explore new ways of expressing their concerns, curiosities, and passion (Saxena

17

n.pag.). Saxena draws upon a comment of a fan writer who describes fan sites as a place where

reader-writers can collectively agree to “suspend shame” in favour of exploring their potentiality

as a writer and a story-teller outside the restrictions of the conventional publishing world (Saxena

n.pag.). Catherine Tosenberger affirms this point and argues: “the identity-bending,

pseudonymous nature of online fannish discourse affords fans a certain measure of concealment,

which proves especially valuable for young fans who fear the consequences of expressing [for

example] non-hetero-normative desires” (“Homosexuality” 190). Tosenberger emphasises the

dominantly all-encompassing atmosphere of Harry Potter fandom that makes up “a lively,

intellectually stimulating, and tolerant interpretive community” (202). One of the areas of

exploration that gained popularity within the fandom is slash fan fiction, in which readers

explore and express their interests in romance between same-sex characters such as Harry Potter

and Draco Malfoy or Sirius Black and Remus Lupin (Saxena n.pag.). Tosenberger argues that

the freedom the online world gives young readers is valuable, especially when they desire to

explore the narrative of sexuality because online fan communities are not subjected to the

restrictions of limited sensibilities and comfort zones of adult controlled environment such as

schools (202). In a way, the digital space enables readers to take control of their own literary

experience, by sharing their thoughts on a literary text with other readers in an environment that

is tolerant, welcoming, and anonymous (Saxena n.pag.). Therefore, if readers are to venture out

as fan writers, the digital spaces of online fan communities provides an environment similar to a

work-shop, which enables readers to play and experiment with the story while also allowing

them to practice articulating their own story and to receive feedbacks from those who love the

same story they do (Saxena n.pag.).

18

In an article titled “The Weird World of Fan Fiction,” Alexandra Alter echoes Wolfgang

Iserʼs words and argues that “[f]ictional worlds, while they appear solid, are riddled with blank

spots and unexpected surfaces . . . Itʼs human nature to press at the boundaries of stories, to

scrabble at the edges, to want to know what's going on just out of range of the camera” (Alter).

She points to literary works such as Gregory Maguireʼs Wicked, adapted from The Wonderful

Wizard of Oz, Geraldine Brooksʼs March, the untold story of the father of the March sisters from

Louisa May Alcottʼs Little Women, or even E. L. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey, initially written as

a homage to Twilight as a fan fiction piece titled “Master of the Universe,” and argues that fan

fiction writing has become so prevalent because it gives readers freedom to push the boundaries

and limitations of the original story and to take control over their own literary experience, while

at the same time, offering an homage to and a critique of the original story (Alter).

Bringing the focus of discussion from the general prevalence of online fandom to Harry

Potter online fandom, Tosenberger asserts that responses to the Harry Potter books from the

online fandom are testaments to the great cultural impact of the literary series as well as readers’

deep immersion in the texts (“Oh” 200). She argues that “[o]nline Potter fandom is an invaluable

repository of the creative and critical responses of the series’ most dedicated and engaged

readers” (Tosenberger, “Oh” 200). On this point, Saxena eloquently states that, “[t]he decade of

publication of the [Harry Potter] series coincides with the rapid emergence of the digital space,

the spread of Internet technology and the development of the World Wide Web . . . [a]nd the

growing Potter fandom came to be intricately linked with the emerging cyber technologies”

(Saxena n.pag.). Novosel concurs and summarises that the growth of the Harry Potter books’

popularity and readership was greatly advanced by the dramatic expansion of fan-sites into a

medium that we know now that paralleled the Harry Potter’s 10-year arc (Novosel 51).

19

Novosel notes that during the publication of The Philosopher’s Stone, Rowling has

managed to stir her readers’ imaginations and encourage further anticipation through her

admission that there were seven books in the series, with the final manuscript being held in a

safety deposit box (Novosel 51). This disclosure allowed for increased mystery and suspense at

each subsequent book release (Novosel 51). Novosel further observes that the Harry Potter

books perhaps presented a particularly visible reader reception, because the hiatus between book

releases offered added incentives for ardent fans to talk to each other while waiting for the next

instalment of the series to be published (51). Both Saxena and Novosel speculate that the

progression of the Harry Potter series paralleled the expansion of online fandom in such a way

partly because during the course of ten years as the series continued, the presence of the Harry

Potter online community provided an easily accessible public space for ardent readers to

exchange ideas about the story and compare their own creative works based on Harry Potter

books, consequently leading to further growth of online fandom (Saxena n.pag.; Novosel 51).

Furthermore, Rowling’s particular style of writing itself, which leaves enough textual

gaps to sustain readers’ curiosity and to keep them wanting to explore the possible “behind the

scene” stories to fill in those gaps, perhaps contributed to encouraging fan writing (Saxena

n.pag.). According to Saxena, there are over 600 million Internet archives that deal with Harry

Potter stories from discussion forums to fan-fiction web siteswith fanfiction.net alone

containing over 500,000 Harry Potter inspired fanfiction storiesat the point of Saxena’s

research in 2002 (Saxena n.pag.). The forms of response from the fans range from fan fiction

stories, to artwork, to YouTube videos (Novosel 51). To sum up, Harry Potter fan sites have

offered “a welcoming environment” (Novosel 51) for readers to create “a sense of community”

(Novosel 53) with fellow readers, people with whom they would never have interacted with, had

20

it not been for their commitment to Harry Potter series (Novosel 53). In short, online fandom has

allowed readers to take control of their own literary experiences.

3.3. Dumbledore the Philosopher-King

In order to conduct a case study of reader response to the Harry Potter stories, the focus

of this investigation is centred on the character of Dumbledore. In order to give context to the

analysis of writings by reader-writers in later sections, this section first examines the textual

analysis of the character of Dumbledore. In an interview, Rowling admits that Dumbledore often

represents her authorial voice and Dumbledore is arguably the primary moral voice in the story

(Mizimba). Throughout the series, Rowling presents love and compassion as the most powerful

magic through the voice of Dumbledore (e.g. Bassham, “Love”). By presenting love as magic,

Rowling offers readers the possibility of experiencing magic in our real—“Muggle”—world.

Rowling portrays Dumbledore as the philosopher-king who binds the moral principle of the

story. She has Dumbledore champion as his moral mantra—Dumbledore philosophy—that love

is the strongest weapon the good side has against the forces of evil (Rowling, Order 726;

Rowling Half-blood 443, 476). I would argue that the Harry Potter series is first and foremost a

love story: not a love story in a traditional sense that depicts the romantic love of a couple, but

the story strongly upholds the value of love between family members, between teachers and

students, and among friends and allies. Such love is often presented as a definitive moral

guidance of goodness. For example, Dumbledore’s faith in the power of love is strongly

highlighted in the scene where he reveals to Harry the true circumstances of his parents, Lily and

James,’ death. As a philosopher-king who concludes the story with his words of wisdom,

Dumbledore reiterates to Harry at the end of The Philosopher’s Stone that love can bring out

“magic at its deepest and most impenetrable” (Rowling, Philosopher 311); Dumbledore also

21

reveals to Harry that when Lily Potter sacrificed her own life to save Harry’s, her act of self-

sacrifice placed an immensely powerful magical protection on Harry, making him untouchable to

Voldemort (Rowling, Philosopher 216).

Unsurprisingly, given the strong portrayal of Dumbledore as the moral centre of the

story, most adult characters in the text are portrayed to have strong respect for and deference

towards Dumbledore, and so do the students at Hogwarts who exhibit admiration, respect, and

awe towards their Headmaster. It is then quite natural that readers follow suit and look up to

Dumbledore to exhibit stellar moral judgements. Julia Pond, for example, observes that to many

readers Dumbledore is the voice that speaks of the value of free choice and wisdom of learning

from the consequences of making those choices (Pond 193). While Dumbledore seems to take

care of the good of all and watch over the magical world as a whole, Rowling places particular

emphasis on Dumbledore’s relationship with Harry. Harry’s trust and allegiance towards

Dumbledore do not waiver until his death at the end of The Half-Blood Prince. Harry’s strong

and unwavering loyalty towards Dumbledore is arguably an anchor and a guide for readers to

place in turn their trust in the character of Dumbledore—his judgments and benevolence. This is

significant since as readers’ responses show that they, alongside Harry and his companions, have

revered Dumbledore without question until the publication of The Deathly Hallows.

In light of such loyalty Harry sustains, Dumbledore, in return, shows great affection

towards Harry, which perhaps incites further confidence in readers to strengthen their conviction

in Dumbledore’s benevolence. In The Order of Phoenix, Dumbledore confesses that he cares

about Harry too much to the point that he may have disregarded the safety of others at the

expense of Harry’s safety and happiness (Rowling, Order 739): “I cared more for your happiness

than your knowing the truth[, I cared] . . . more for your life than the lives that might be lost if

22

the plan [to swart Voldemort] failed” (Rowling, Order 739). This desire to protect those who are

dear to oneself even at the expense of others may be considered selfish. However, one may also

argue that this confession portrays natural feelings of those who love deeply and characterises

Dumbledore as an individual who is less lofty, less god-like, and someone more human. Perhaps,

it is the trust and affection Dumbledore displays towards Harry that allows readers to uncover the

man behind the mask of a Headmaster, the one who is caring yet, keeps his distance from the

every-day business of ordinary students. Preliminary examination showed that while

Dumbledore is mentioned by many of the reader-writers as a mentor and a father figure for

Harry, they demonstrated deeper interests in his character after the publication of The Deathly

Hallows. The examination of analytical pieces posted by readers such as Caltheous and Ib4075

support my observation that the darker side of Dumbledore’s past, revealed in The Deathly

Hallows, stirred a phenomenal amount of discussions among readers.

3.4. Dumbledore’s Fall from the Pedestal

As mentioned above, The Deathly Hallows reveals a shadowy past that has haunted the

almighty Dumbledore (Rowling, Deathly 146), and while the revelation of his tragic family

history invites readers’ sympathy, Dumbledoreʼs darker, sinister, and manipulative side calls for

a re-evaluation of his character. Perhaps, in the process of reading The Deathly Hallows, the

unfailing trust that readers (alongside Harry) have placed in Dumbledore is questioned, tested,

and possibly, for some, broken. For example, on many occasions when faced with a difficult

choice, Dumbledore seems to make decisions (such as planning Harry’s possible death) that put

his morality into question. In fact, it is uncertain whether Rowling intentionally created a

narrative that does not reveal too much of the workings of Dumbledore’s heart and mind in order

to keep his character more mysterious. Either way, this newfound depth of character in The

23

Deathly Hallows provides the opportunity for reader-writers to fill in the gaps, encouraging them

to imagine, for example, Dumbledore’s childhood and his family life, and connect textual facts

to these fan fabricated events in order to understand the experiences that shaped the man in the

text.

On Dumbledore’s moral ambiguity, for example, Harry discovers in The Deathly

Hallows that Dumbledore’s unusual partiality for Harry is harboured because Dumbledore takes

the time to get to know the younger man in order to prepare him as the leader in the approaching

war against Voldemort. To increase the mystery surrounding Dumbledore’s true feelings towards

Harry even further, Rowling introduces the character of AberforthDumbledore’s estranged

brotherwho challenges Harry by pointing out the possibility that he himself is an expendable

pawn in Albus’ grand plan (Rowling, Deathly 453). Aberforth speaks bitterly of his brother’s

ability to manipulate others: “I know my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother’s

knee. Secrets and lies, that’s how we grew up, and Albus . . . he was a natural (emphasis added)”

(Rowling, Deathly 453). Secondly, Harry learns the bitter truth that Dumbledore’s “love” for him

has not stopped his mentor from keeping some very important truths from him; for example,

Dumbledore never reveals to Harry his suspicion that Harry is likely the seventh Horcrux and

that he deduces that Harry’s death may be inevitable in order to bring upon Voldemort ‘s

downfall (Rowling, Deathly 550-2). While it may be his pity that prevents Dumbledore from

being forthcoming, due to the fact that he desires not to over-burden Harry and wishes him to be

able to embrace life without the knowledge of his impending death, it is also true that

Dumbledore does not give Harry the freedom of choice to decide for himself on this matter

(Rowling, Deathly 550-2). Although some might argue that Dumbledore’s assumption that Harry

might survive Voldemort’s killing curse is correct, I would argue that the possibility of Harry’s

24

survival is dependent on a specific chain of event, unfathomable by the majority of readers and

characters alike (Rowling, Deathly 591-5). Therefore, it is natural that Dumbledore’s

ruthlessness in arranging his protégé’s possible death causes readers, along with Harry himself,

to call Dumbledore’s morality into question (Rowling, Deathly 550-2). In a sense, readers begin

to discover that while Rowling presents Dumbledore as the primary conveyer of the message of

the importance of love and loyalty, he himself is not necessarily depicted as the one who

embodies this ideal.

Regarding Dumbledoreʼs cold and sinister side, Pond observes a master story-teller in

Rowling who plants seeds of criticism of her own characters within the text; on the one hand,

Rowling sets Dumbledore up as the person who withholds information from others in the name

of their own protection, while on the other hand, she simultaneously offers criticism of

Dumbledore’s treatment of knowledge through the re-construction of his character in The

Deathly Hallows (Pond 203). Pond observes that Dumbledore reveals only the most necessary

information to those who work with him in order to ensure the success of a mission, potentially

risking the lives of those around him and preventing them from making fully informed decisions

(Pond 192, 203). Echoing the words of Aberforth, Pond perceives a calculating aspect to the

relationship between Harry and Dumbledore, as Dumbledore places himself in a position of a

mentor to Harry, and with his control of information, manipulates Harry into acting in a manner

that fits the master plan (192, 203). Rowling, however, illustrates how Dumbledore’s censorship,

instead of protecting Harry from the fear and the burden of knowledge, brings a false sense of

security, which ultimately hampers his ability to assess the situations correctly (Pond 204). Being

deprived of crucial information, Harry finds himself incorrect in his assessment of certain

25

situations as demonstrated most acutely in the tragic calamity at the Department of Mysteries

(Pond 204).

The fiasco at the Department of Mysteries is brought about by a series of well-intentioned

but misguided actions on the part of Dumbledore, Sirius, and Harry. At the beginning of The

Order of Phoenix, Harry comes to regard Sirius as “a mixture of father and brother” (Rowling,

Order 733) and both Harry and Sirius’ mutual determination to protect each other becomes

leverage that Voldemort can exploit to his advantage (Rowling, Goblet 200). Knowing that “the

person Sirius cared most about in the world was [Harry and] . . . that the one person for whom

[Harry] would go to any lengths to rescue was Sirius” (Rowling, Order 733), Voldemort lures

Harry out into the Department of Mysteries by making Harry believe that Sirius is kept captive

and tortured there (Rowling, Order 723). Dumbledore is aware of the possibility that Voldemort

might plan such an attack had been known to Dumbledore; however, he chooses not to disclose

this possibility to Harry (Rowling, Order 708). In fact, Dumbledore himself later acknowledges

this error in his judgment:

If I had been open with you Harry as I should have been, you would have known

a long time ago that Voldemort might try and lure you to the Department of

Mysteries and Sirius would not have had to come after you. That blame lies with

me, and with me alone. (Rowling, Order 708)

While Dumbledore’s humility in admitting his mistake appears graceful, his secretive nature and

almost obsessively controlling demeanour challenges readers to re-evaluate his character,

revealing aspects of self-righteousness and manipulation to the point of putting the lives of other

in danger.

26

Williams and Kellner compare Dumbledore to Plato and argue that Dumbledore lives in a

stormy age in which he becomes witness to the rise of not only one but two dark wizards

(Williams and Kellner 129). Dumbledore’s experience with the rise and fall of Grindelwald, a

dark wizard who was Dumbledore’s childhood friend, makes Dumbledore acknowledge his own

demon—his strong desire for power (Williams and Kellner 129-30, 137-8). After this realisation,

Dumbledore chooses to shy away from seeking power in the world of politics himself (although

he remains involved in politics as an indirect advisor) and instead follow the path of education

(Williams and Kellner 129-30, 137-8). However, critics—while rarerquestion Dumbledore as

an educator and criticise the alleged disconnection he has with his students. For example, Holly

Blackford notes that Dumbledore fails to address Tom Riddle’s “complicated, motivated evil

arising from the deepest unmet longings of childhood” (155). The question Blackford raises here

is why Dumbledore—a teacher who champions nurture over nature and the importance of

individual choices over one’s origin or ancestry—has failed to reach out to Tom Riddle (163,

171). Blackford wonders whether Tom Riddle’s malice and cruelty could possibly have taken a

different turn if he were given a chance, especially at an earlier stage in his life (170). Blackford

continues to contemplate the fact that Dumbledore did not take the time to facilitate a close

relationship as he does with Harry, especially considering Dumbledore was concerned about

Tom Riddle’s violent instincts (170). Blackford further questions Hogwarts’ school system that

refused to address the darker elements of child phycology directly, consequently allowing

aggressive if not outright threatening social behaviours such as bullying to thrive beyond the

confines of a classroom (Blackford 171). Blackford’s criticism invites us to turn a critical eye

towards Dumbledore apparent inaction in the face of this systematic shortcoming within

Hogwarts that feeds the overall neglect, or perhaps indifference, on the teachers’ part to the

27

reality of educating Hogwarts students students with the specially trained capability to do real

harm if they were to act upon their dark monstrous desires (Blackford 171-72).

Likewise, Beth Admiraal and Regan Lance Reitsma point to Dumbledore’s apparent lack

of interest in protecting his students from the mental and physical abuse inflicted by their

teachers (121). Admiraal and Reitsma observe how Dumbledore allows a significant degree of

bullying either among students or worse still, bullying of students by teachers to go unpunished

(or perhaps unnoticed) on school grounds (119, 121); after all, it is arguably his moral obligation

as a Headmaster to intervene in order to protect the well being of students under his care (119,

121). Admiraal and Reitsma also criticise Dumbledore’s conspicuous absence in the earlier

period of Harry’s life and question Dumbledore’s rationale for leaving Harry with the Dursleys

as the lack of contact or reassurance that someone is watching over him prevents Harry from

attaining a sense of hope for the future (119). An in-depth examination of some of the critical

opinion pieces written by readers reveals that readers have struggled to understand these more

questionable aspects of Dumbledoreʼs character.

3.5. Dumbledore’s Sexuality

Tamar Szabo Gendler, in the article titled “Is Dumbledore Gay? Who’s to say?,” sheds

light on the remarkable public announcements J. K. Rowling made about Dumbledore, a

declaration of his homosexuality, which stirred many responses ranging from celebration and

support to condemnation and outrage. In an interview conducted in 2007 at Carnegie Hall in

New York, when asked by one reader whether Dumbledore—the great champion of the power of

love—has ever found love himself, Rowling answered positively, but added a little twist

mentioning that she “always thought of Dumbledore as gay” (Gendler 143). It is important to

note that the announcement of Dumbledore’s sexuality took place after the publication of the

28

seventh book (Novosel 22). By illustrating Dumbledore’s friendship with Gellert Grindelwald to

have been romantically motivated, what Rowling revealed in the Carnegie Hall interview gave

deeper nuance to Dumbledore’s complexity, prompting readers to re-examine Dumbledore’s

behaviours in a different light (Bassham, “Choices” 166). In the face of a sister’s death that

ensued his relationship with Grindelwald, the realisation dawns on Dumbledore, Rowling

explains, that he completely lost control of his moral compass when he fell in love with

Grindelwald and as a consequence of, Dumbledore became “very distrusting of his judgment in

matters of the heart and decided to live a celibate and scholarly life” (Bassham, “Choices” 166-

7).

Gendler notes that the reaction to Rowling’s announcement was immediate and powerful;;

in the first forty-eight hours, almost 3,000 comments were posted on The Leaky Cauldron and

over 2,500 posts on Mugglenet, in addition to the news coverage in Time, Newsweek, New York

Times and other major newspapers across the world (Gendler 143). Naturally, not all readers

were happy with Rowling’s extra-textual announcement, and the announcement itself stirred

discussions amongst readers and academics around the issue of what Tosenberger refers to as the

“canonicity”textually impliedof Dumbledore’s homosexuality (Tosenberger, “Oh” 201). In

the centre of this discussion lies a question of authorial control as ordinary readers and

academics alike question just how much control an author should have over a text after the story

is published and concluded (Tosenberger, “Oh” 202). While some readers perceived Rowling’s

announcement as an author’s kind gesture to connect with her readers by providing additional

facts about the stories and characters, others perceived her announcement as her desire to control

the interpretation of the texts, consequently restricting the freedom of readers to imagine the

stories outside authorial control (Tosenberger, “Oh” 202). Tosenberger points to Rowling’s

29

claim that Dumbledore’s homosexuality is apparent in the text and suspects that her confidence

(or perhaps political motivation) in this declaration may be attributed to her awareness of popular

slash fan-fiction (“Oh” 201). Slash fan fiction is “fanfiction that concerns a romantic and/or

sexual relationship between characters of the same gender” (Tosenberger, “Oh” 200). In her

article titled “‘Oh my God, the Fanfiction!’ Dumbledore’s Outing and the Online Harry Potter

Fandom,” Tosenberger focuses her attention on slash romances created around Harry Potter

books and observes that some of the slash fan fiction works are “thoughtful and nuanced” (200)

in the way they handle of the issue of sexuality and the vulnerability of a person when falling in

love (200). Tosenberger notes that slash fan-fiction writers started creating love stories, artwork,

and critical essays about the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald immediately

after the publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, preceding Rowling’s Carnegie

Hall interview by three months (Tosenberger 200). In other words, Rowling’s announcement

validated the slash fictions writers’ inklings that Dumbledore is gay (Tosenberger 200).

Some slash fan-fiction writers have taken powerful inspiration from Dumbledore’s

coming out and explored his sexuality as well as vulnerability through love stories centred

around his character and also by imagining his journey succeeding the fall out of his relationship

with Grindelwald to regain “dignity and integrity even in loneliness” (Tosenberger, “Oh” 204).

One such writer is Sahara Storm, who explores how Dumbledore’s passionate infatuation with

Grindelwald leads him to lose his moral centre and become blind to the needs of others, causing

Dumbledore to fail in his responsibility of taking care of his sister and brother (Westman 197).

Other slash fan-fiction writers deviate greatly from the canonical text desiring to offer a happy-

ending for Dumbledore, for example, by imagining other lovers in an alternate universe

(Tosenberger 204). In a manner, as Tosenberger argues, Dumbledore’s sexuality has gained a

30

distinct voice in a world of slash fan-fiction beyond what is explicitly expressed on the pages of

a canon text (Tosenberger 204).

The emotional trauma Dumbledore carries into his adulthood comes not only from his

friendship with Grindelwald but also from his family history. The Deathly Hallows suggests that

perhaps these two factors cannot be discussed independently, because Rowling sets it up so that

the two are intricately intertwined: for example, the chain of events that places Dumbledore in

Godric’s Hollow in charge of his sister leads Dumbledore to meet Grindelwald, which then ends

with the accident in which Ariana is killed in the midst of a duel between Albus, Aberforth, and

Grindelwald. To cast light on Dumbledore’s past relationships with his family members, The

Deathly Hallows reveals that Dumbledore’s father was sent to Azkaban prison after assaulting

three Muggle boys in retaliation for their cruel bullying of Ariana (Rowling, Deathly 21-4, 288-

93, 571-9). Ariana was rendered mentally disabled by the bullying and was kept at home under

her mother’s care (Rowling, Deathly 21-4, 288-93, 571-9). After singlehandedly taking care of

Ariana for years, Dumbledore’s mother was killed in an accident when Ariana lost control of her

magical ability (Rowling, Deathly 573). Her death caused then young Albus, who was a new

graduate from Hogwarts with brilliant prospects, to give up his plans and take over his mother’s

duties of taking care of the unstable Ariana (Rowling, Deathly 573). Looking back upon this

time, Dumbledore confesses:

I resented it [the obligation]. . . . I was gifted, I was brilliant, I wanted to escape. I

wanted to shine. I wanted glory. . . . Do not misunderstand me . . . I loved them . .

. but I was selfish. . . . So that, when my mother died, and I was left the

responsibility of a damaged sister and a wayward brother, I returned to my village

in anger and bitterness. Trapped and wasted, I thought! (Rowling, Deathly 573)

31

Dumbledore is portrayed here as someone who was aware of his own brilliance and eager to

prove his worth in the world with his intelligence and charisma. It is also clear that young

Dumbledore viewed family obligations as a burden and he wished for a way out, into the world

where he could be someone of importance.

At this precise moment, when Dumbledore is cooped up in Godric’s Hollow in frustration

and resentment, Rowling has Dumbledore meet Grindelwald. Grindelwald brings a breath of

fresh air into Dumbledore’s dull and tedious life. While being aware of his questionable ethical

principles, Dumbledore at first finds answers to all his problems in Grindelwald’s fervour for a

Wizard revolution against Muggles (Rowling, Deathly 291, 572-4). Grindelwald argues to

Dumbledore that in the new society where the wizard kind dominates the Muggles, there would

be no need for Ariana to be hidden (Rowling, Deathly 456-7, 571-2). The wording of the letter

Dumbledore writes to Grindelwald is indicative of a self-righteous supremacist: “we have been

given power, and yes, that power gives us the right to rule [over the Muggles], but it also gives

us responsibilities over the ruled. . . . And from this it follows that where we meet resistance, we

must use only the force that is necessary and no more” (Rowling, Deathly 291). Rowling depicts

how young Dumbledore becomes oblivious to the neglect of his sister’s care as he becomes

enthralled alongside Grindelwald in their shared obsession for world dominance with the slogan,

“for the greater good” (Rowling, Deathly 291, 573-77). The ensuing tragedy that ends in

Ariana’s death suggests that Rowling makes a strong point against desires for power that put

glory before everyday kindness and decency.

I would argue that the earlier books do not guide readers to see beyond Dumbledore’s wit

and outlandishness and it is only with the publication of The Deathly Hallows that readers realise

the depth and multi-dimensionality of Dumbledore’s character. Yet, by uncovering previously

32

unknown history, revealing his longing for redemption and his humble acknowledgement of his

failings, the vulnerability uncovered in The Deathly Hallows makes Dumbledore more exposed

to readers’ compassion. Arguably, The Deathly Hallows portrays Dumbledore as someone who

has learned to live gracefully albeit under the weight of the burden of guilt over his sister’s death,

for which Dumbledore blames himself to be responsible (Rowling, Deathly 456-7, 571-2).

Furthermore, Dumbledore’s possible romantic relationship with Grindelwald ties back to the first

point—Dumbledore’s faith in love. One of the questions some of the reader-writers raise is how

Dumbledore, who was disappointed in love himself, could have turned to become a champion for

the power of love. In the world of Harry Potter, Rowling depicts that love as not only the element

that brings people happiness, but also the cause of great pain often provoking terrible

consequences regardless of a person’s good intentions. Further, Karin Westman makes an

excellent point when she observes that while the earlier Harry Potter books portray love as a

protective force, The Half-Blood Prince and The Deathly Hallows depict love’s power as one

that can “wound as well as shield” (Westman 193). Westman argues that love’s destructive

power connects darker characters such as Lucius Malfoy, Barty Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix

Lestrange with an ostensibly more benevolent character of Dumbledore, challenging readers to

see connections between unlike characters who are equally affected by much darker kind of love

(Westman 193).

Echoing critics such as Bassham and Tosenberger, Westman observes that love’s

destructive power can be examined in young Dumbledore who loses his moral compass when he

becomes “engrossed in all-consuming passion and desire [for Grindelwald]” (Westman 193,

196). Such infatuation, Westman notes, allows young Dumbledore to turn a blind eye to his

“family’s needs [as well as] . . . the graver implications of Grindelwald’s plans” (Westman 196).

33

Westman states that Rowling’s story makes a strong distinction between love that leads the lover

to “[rise to] the heights of absolute heroism” (196) and love that is more sinister and is tinged

with obsessive and self-serving desire (Westman 195). Westman further notes that in later books,

Harry’s journey becomes that of learning that love is not a force of good in itself unless that love

is accompanied by collective human decency and a strong individual moral compass (Westman

194-5). One of the memorable points Westman makes here is how obsessive love “prevents

sympathy for the others beyond the beloved . . . [and] in Rowling’s series . . . sympathy is often a

catalyst for moral action and social change” (Westman 197). While acknowledging the element

of infatuation in the fevered behaviours Harry Potter fans display, Westman commends those

who turn their obsession towards social good. For example, she points to the Wizard Rock

movement that some of the Harry Potter fans set up in order to promote literacy, allowing the

fans to turn their arguably self-serving love for Harry Potter books into something more

positive—an “others-serving” force—that promotes tolerance and social justice (Westman 197).

3.6. Reader-reception and the Question of Authorial Ownership

As mentioned briefly above, many readers responded to the issue of Dumbledore’s

sexuality in various ways. Nonetheless, one of the most interesting responses could be observed

among readers who brought up the issue of authorial authority and challenged Rowling and her

right to make declarations about her characters after the series was completed (Gendler 144).

Some readers argue that after a story is finished, an author has no authority to create new

thoughts and realities for the characters and re-define them extra-textually (Gendler 144). Some

readers go further to argue that Rowling’s (alleged) claim to her continued authorial ownership,

her wish to control characters long after the story had left her hands, shows her disrespect

towards readers’ right to their own literary experience (Gendler 144). This idea of the writer’s

34

authority is a perspective that is examined further in the later chapters. Gendler plays a devil’s

advocate in her essay and points out that while readers who raise the issue of Rowling’s authority

make a valid point, few readers criticised Rowling for over-extending her authorial intent when

she revealed details not depicted in the text about other characters such as Neville Longbottom or

Teddy Lupin (144). Perhaps, it was the controversial nature of the issue (Dumbledore’s

homosexuality) instead of the subject of authorial control that upsets some of theses readers

(Gendler 144). While a different layer of issues (prejudice against homosexuality, perhaps) may

lay at the heart of the heated discussion over Rowling’s declaration of Dumbledore’s sexuality,

what is more relevant to this research on online fandom and reader response is how Rowling’s

disclosure (or confirmation) of Dumbledore’s homosexuality stirred the issue of “truth in fiction”

(Gendler 144). Indeed, Gendler notes that “for most Potter fans, Rowling is the patented owner

and creator of the Potter universe (154) and thus facts revealed by Rowling in her interviews are

treated by many fans as something like an “oral appendix” (152). Gendler further observes that

Rowling herself appears to endorse (at the least to an extent) the view of those who champion the

right of an author and the privilege of authorial intent, pronouncing at one point that

“[Dumbledore] is my character . . . [and] I have the right to say what I say about him” (152,

154). The question raised here is whether facts in a fictional story are determined solely by

statements explicitly written by the author within a text. If this is not the case, it is important to

question what part readers play in contributing to the creation of meaning in fiction and how

textual evidence and authorial intent interact with reader response (Gendler 144, 148). The

interesting twist is that due to the growth of the Internet and, with it, fan-sites where millions of

readers can communicate with each other, authors are also placed in a position where they have

access to the plethora of responses from their readers. This means that, if they wish, authors can

35

respond to readers either in social media spaces or through modification of future manuscripts in

a serial publication with a view that incorporates readers’ suggestions and preferences. This was

also possible prior to the Internet (e.g., Dickens, for example, considered reader response in the

serial publication of his novels, since the nature of such serial publication allowed for reader

response before the writing of the next instalment [e.g., Davies 166-9]); however, the scale and

speed of communication are vastly different in contemporary media settings.

3.7. Reader-reception Observed through Henry Jenkins’ Study on Fan Fiction Writing

According to Bronwen Thomas, the first wave of theory on fandom was strongly

influenced by Marxism; the theory conceptualises fan responses as a subversive act on the part of

readers who are marginalized in their alleged power struggle against publishers and writers who

exercise control over the literary experiences of readers (Thomas 3, 7). Henry Jenkins, a

prominent theorist on fandom likewise argues that, “[f]andom is a vehicle for marginalized

subcultural groups (women, the young, gays, and so on) to pry open space for their cultural

concerns within dominant representations . . . [and transform the texts into something] that is

more responsive to their needs, to make it better producers of personal meanings and pleasures”

(Jenkins 40). Some, however, critique this initial theory of fandom on the grounds that the

Marxist conception of readers does not take into consideration the diverse cultural, social, and

historical experiences of readers that make each reader’s approach and engagement with a text

different (Thomas 3). Thomas points out that the current predominant theory of fandom

acknowledges subversive forces present within the fan communities, while also acknowledging

the mainstream status that fandom has acquired as a primary place where a participatory culture

is established (Thomas 9).

36

Jenkins observes that, in the past, many literary theorists and academics associated the

notion of fan writings with strong negative connotations. For example, Jenkins points to Michel

de Certeau, who regards fan writers as “textual poachers” (“Fans” 39) who raid and despoil the

creations of others for their own pleasure (“Fans” 39). Some critics perceive that “the culture of

participation” (“Fans” 40) that online fandom represents challenges “the very notion of literature

as a kind of private property to be controlled by textual producers and their academic

interpreters” (emphases added) (Jenkins, “Fans” 40). Jenkins observes that there is a prevailing

stigma purposely created mainly by academics to designate fan-related activities as being

“outside the mainstream” (“Fans” 40) implying that it is “beneath [the] dignity” (“Fans” 40) of

academics to warrant serious attention to such fan writings. This stigma, Jenkins points out,

“reassure[s] academic writers of the validity of their own interpretations of the . . . content,

readings made in conformity with established critical protocols, and free[s] them of any need to

come into direct contact with the . . . ‘crazed’ followers [fans]” (“Fans” 40). Further, Jenkins

suspects that the presence of this stigma has isolated individual readers and audiences from each

other and hindered them from sharing their common interests and literacy experiences openly in

a non-academic space (“Fans” 40).

Fandom, according to Jenkins, provides culturally and socially marginalized groups,

including youth, to appropriate a text as a vessel to express what matters to them (“Fans” 40); fan

fiction writing allows these readers to make personal connections and meanings within a text by

re-creating and re-imagining the text to make it more responsive to their interests and concerns

(Jenkins, “Fans” 40;; Jenkins, “Textual” 3). Furthermore, fans are not simple readers/audiences,

but readers who connect with other readers/audiences in order to share their thoughts and ideas

(“Fans” 41;; “Textual” 86); in this process of sharing literary experiences, fandom transforms

37

some “fan readers [into] fan writers” (Jenkins, “Fans” 41) and allows them to create a

participatory culture of their own (Jenkins, “Fans” 41). The online aspect of fandom allows these

reader-writers to reach a broader audience worldwide in the online realm (Jenkins, “Fans” 41). In

other words, online fandom has taken many of the fans out of the shadow of subculture and

offered them a more mainstream position, in which they can build their own community more

openly (Jenkins, “Fans” 41).

Jenkins observes that the face of fan fiction writers has changed dramatically in the past

ten to fifteen years from being mostly restricted to adult women to expanding to include

multitudes of both male and female writers who belong to various age groups (Jenkins,

“Convergence” 178-9). Jenkins turns to one of the Harry Potter fan fiction sites, The Sugar Quill,

in order to demonstrate how online fandom participants sustain a culture of peer-review as well

as that of mutual learning and betterment through positive and constructive workshops (Jenkins,

“Convergence” 178-9). Jenkins points to Zsenya, the web-mistress of The Sugar Quill, who

states that the site’s online environment offers readers “an amazing way to communicate”

(Jenkins, “Convergence” 178);; Zsenya stresses the point that in an online environment “[t]he

absence of face-to-face [communications] equalises everyone a little bit, so it gives the younger

members a chance to talk with adults without perhaps some of the intimidation they might

normally feel in talking to adults” (Jenkins, “Convergence” 178). Zsenya further explains that

The Sugar Quill offers a support system, a sort of mentorship, to new fan writers by providing

them a safe environment where they test their ability, learn and master new skills, and build their

confidence through constructive feedback and reviews they receive from their peers (Jenkins,

“Convergence” 178-9). Jenkins reports that members of The Sugar Quill “beta reading” team, a

nontechnical and creative editing team, concur with Zsenya on this point; the team states that

38

their goal as creative editors is to provide an opportunity for new writers to take their story to the

next level through several stages of editing process before posting (“Convergence” 179-180).

These editors further emphasise that their wish is for all contributing writers to develop

confidence, courage, and expertise as writers through peer reviews and the exchanges of

constructive criticism (Jenkins, “Convergence” 179-80). It is evident from Jenkins’ observation

that fan writing in the online realm is not only a space for readers to share their common interests

but also a place of mentorship—a workshop for aspiring writers.

As mentioned above, an explosion of Harry Potter online fandom and the high level of

participation and commitment such fandom encourages make Harry Potter series a special case

for this investigation; Harry Potter readers have embraced the possibilities to create their own

stories, which they can publish to their peers through online fandom. (Perhaps encouraged by

such reader initiative for writing, teachers use Harry Potter fan writing as a method for

promoting literacy in classroom settings [e.g. see Bond, Sharp]). On this point, I turn once again

to Henry Jenkins, who is one of the pioneering researchers on online fandom and fan writings. In

Convergence Culture—Where Old and New Media Collide, Jenkins points out that online fan

communities provide readers, especially young ones, a place to find and assert their own

independent voices in a space that is free of adult control (205). As Jenkins eloquently phrases,

young readers are “mapping out new strategies for negotiating around and through globalization”

(205), and through their participation in worldwide online fandom, they are finding a way to

actualise their imaginative powers and share their creativity within this particular realm

(“Convergence” 205). More simply put, young reader-writers find their own audience in the

realm of online fandom and “connect with children worldwide” (Jenkins, “Convergence” 205).

Jenkins further observes that Harry Potter online fandom has affected not only young readers

39

worldwide, but it has also invited adult readers, thereby allowing the online fandom to break

both national and cultural boundaries as well as generational barriers and hierarchies (Jenkins

205).

Regarding the cross-generational aspect of online fandom, Jenkins suggests that a

momentum and passion for online fandom are often sustained by readers’ desires to share their

understandings with and learn from their fellow readers-writers (“Convergence” 177); these

desires, Jenkins asserts, are held by readers no matter what their “age, class, race, gender, and

educational level” (“Convergence” 177). Markedly, Jenkins argues that online fandom offers

“powerful opportunities for learning” (“Convergence” 177) beyond the traditional formal

education setting of adult-teachers and child-learners (“Convergence” 177). For example, The

Daily Prophet, an online school newspaper for the fictitious Hogwarts, was launched by the then

thirteen-year-old Heather Lawyer, who was inspired by news reports regarding how Harry

Potter series was encouraging children to read (Jenkins, “Convergence” 171). Wanting to make

her own contribution in support of literacy, Lawyer created The Daily Prophet less than a year

after her first reading of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone (Jenkins, “Convergence”

171). The Daily Prophet has grown since then and currently (at the time of Jenkins’s research in

2006) hosts a staff of more than one hundred children worldwide, with Lawyer working as the

chief editor of the whole operation (Jenkins, “Convergence” 171).

Jenkins sees Lawyer as a visionary who understood the online realm as a place where

children could explore reading and writing outside the confines of adult supervision as well as a

place where adults, in turn, could access the articulated thoughts of children (“Convergence”

171-4). Understanding this particular nature of online fandom, Lawyer seized her opportunity to

reach out to both children and adults and in the process, attempted to help adults understand how

40

children think and what they care about (Jenkins, “Convergence” 171-4). In Lawyer’s own

words,

[The Daily Prophet was launched with the goals of] bringing the world of literature to

life. . . . By creating an online “newspaper” with articles that lead the readers to believe

this fanciful world of Harry Potter to be real, this opens the mind [of children] to

exploring books, diving into the characters, and analyzing great literature. By developing

the mental ability to analyze the written word at a young age, children will find a love for

reading unlike any other. By creating this faux world[,] we are learning, creating, and

enjoying ourselves in a friendly utopian society. (Heather Lawyer qtd. in Jenkins,

“Convergence” 172)

Jenkins asserts that the example of The Daily Prophet supports his initial point that online

fandom contributes to enriching reading experiences for children (“Convergence 176”); Jenkins

suggests further that an exploration of a fictional realm with its rules and limitations leads

children to deepen their understanding of the culture and the society in which they live and

ultimately of themselves (“Convergence” 176).

Jenkins’s observation of fan fiction and online fandom can be tied back to Iserʼs reader

response theory. For example, Iser’s theory of indeterminacies within texts is quite relevant in

discussing some of the popular genres of fan fiction writing, because many fan fiction stories

take advantage of textual indeterminacies Iser refers to. For example, some of the genre

classifications that Jenkins applies include “Alternative Points of View,” “I Wonder If-s,” and

“Missing Moments” (“Convergence” 181). These genres deal respectively with the following: 1)

events that the original texts cover, looked through an alternative point of view other than that of

the protagonist’s;; 2) imagining an alternative path a significant event mentioned in the original

41

texts could have taken; 3) writing unwritten parts of Harry Potter stories by filling in the gaps

left in the original texts (Jenkins, “Convergence” 181). Regarding why fan writers are interested

in exploring indeterminacies and gaps left in the original text, one of The Sugar Quill’s editors

explains the process of fan fiction writing as follows:

I don’t write fanfic (sic) to “fix” things, I write it to explore corners that [the

original Harry Potter stories] . . . didn’t have the opportunity to peek into, or to

speculate on what might have led up to something, or what could result from

some other thing[s]. A story that leaves these wonderful corners isn’t a story that

needs fixing, it’s a story that invites exploration. (emphases in original;; qtd. in

Jenkins, “Convergence” 181-2)

No matter what route one takes to explore creative possibilities texts offer, comments from this

fan fiction writer suggest that fan stories are written both in homage to and in criticism of the

original text, or canon, in question (Jenkins, “Convergence” 181-2;; “Textual” 86). While some

fan fiction websites mandate contributors to remain consistent with the facts Rowling sets up in

the texts, other sites have more a liberal understandings of fan fiction, with contributors posting

stories with contents that diverting from or even blatantly contradict the facts established in the

canon (Jenkins, “Convergence” 181).

Fan fiction writing inevitably raises the issue of copying and Jenkins suspects that some

adults may be concerned with the fact that children engage in the act of copyingas opposed to

creating something originalthrough fan fiction writing (“Convergence” 182). Jenkins counters

such criticism, however, by noting the historically established practice of apprentice artists

learning their craft by copying the works of great masters before they would start developing

their own styles and thus began to create their original pieces of art (“Convergence” 182).

42

Jenkins, at the same time, acknowledges grey areas surrounding fan fiction writing that tread on

an ambiguous boundary in terms of intellectual property and copyright laws (“Convergence”

189). He maintains that it is not clear whether fan fiction writing, which he coins as “amateur

creative expression” (Jenkins, “Convergence” 189), falls under the clause of fair-use protections

under the current U.S. copyright law (“Convergence” 189). Additionally, Jenkins argues that the

laws of society are not current enough to deal with the reality of this culture of participation that

has been established within the realm of online fandom (“Convergence” 189). At this point in

time, it is safe to surmise is that the issue of what is fair use under the copyright and intellectual

property law will certainly continue to be one of the focal points of dialogue between authors and

readers when discussing online fandom and fan writing.

43

4. Methodology

This thesis follows the path suggested by Vandana Saxena in examining how readers

employ writing in response to their acts of reading as a method of critiquing the original text, or

perhaps as a method of complementing and extending the text, and readers do so in exploration

of their own potentiality as writers (Saxena). More specifically, the points of examination are on

1) how readers’ online postings reveal multiple interpretative potentialities of an original literary

text as well as 2) what could be discerned from such postings, specifically with regards to the

aspects of the Harry Potter story that resonate with contemporary readers. In order to narrow

down the scope of this investigation, the examination of reader postings is restricted to postings

that look at the Harry Potter books through the lens of a single character: Professor Dumbledore.

There are a plethora of Harry Potter related fan sites and diverse possible avenues for fan

creation—be they fan videos, music, podcasts, fan fiction, or fan art—that I can turn to for the

investigation of fan responses; however, for the purpose of this Master’s thesis, the focus is

placed on longer pieces of writing by readers, both analytical and imaginative, submitted to

selected fan-sites. While there are a number of fan sites that offer places for readers to submit

their writing, this study is limited to samples of writing from two sites for critical writing

(Mugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron), and one site for creative writing (FanFiction.net). I

selected these sites from a range of candidates because they are fan-driven, offer some degree of

an editing process, are easy to navigate, and include extensive fan submissions. Rowling’s own

official Harry Potter websitePottermoreis intentionally excluded from the selection because

the focus of this thesis is placed on reader-initiated activities and communications as opposed to

44

writer-driven initiatives. 1 The focus of analysis is on longer submissions rather than, say,

dialogic and chat-based forum discussions. Longer written submissions enable readers to express

and develop their personal or analytical response, and to offer their own narrative extensions of

the story. Finally, the analysis is limited to submissions that include substantive response to the

character of Dumbledore.

The particular focus is placed on the examination of how reader-writers attempt to bridge

textual indeterminacies. In terms of the nature of submissions, there are two broad genres that I

considered: 1) critical or analytical responses rely on textual analysis for interpretations of

Dumbledore’s character;; 2) fan fiction writers imaginatively explore many different potentialities

of Dumbledore’s character. In regards to the latter, preliminary investigation suggested that some

fan writers have used the incident of three Muggle boys’ taunting Ariana (Dumbledore’s sister),

her resulting mental instability, and her father’s reaction and subsequent incarceration as a source

of inspiration for narratives about how this trauma may have affected Dumbledore in his

childhood. Other fan writers, inspired by Rowling’s extra-textual statement about Dumbledore’s

sexuality, endeavour to write love stories, focusing on the romantic relationship between

Dumbledore and Grindelwald. Stories created by these fan writers reveal their interpretation of

the character as well as how carefully they have analysed the original text in order to fill in some

of the textual indeterminacies. Explicit in these narratives may be answers as to the why Harry

Potter series is so captivating for many.

1. For further review of Rowling’s Pottermore site, one could refer to Savanna Sharp’s “J.K.

Rowling’s Innovative and Authoritative Online Presence” in Teaching with Harry Potter: Essays

on Classroom Wizardry from Elementary School to College.

45

4.1. Dataset and Analysis

As noted earlier, the investigation of reader writings is limited to the following three

sites: The Leaky Cauldron, Mugglenet, and FanFiction.net. Preliminary analysis shows that, at

the time of investigation in the spring of 2014, there were more than a few thousand fan fiction

stories and a total of eleven pieces of analytical writing with a substantive focus on Dumbledore

posted on these three sites. The inclusion criteria for the chosen postings are: 1) either the writer

includes Dumbledore as an active character in a fan narrative or Dumbledore is discussed

extensively in writers’ reflective analysis;; and 2) writing pieces are 500 words or more for

analytical writing and between 3000 and 8000 words for creative writing. Twenty-one

submissions that meet these criteria comprise my data set. All works are published and freely

available to read outside of any password-protected communities and therefore it is not necessary

to obtain consent from the writers to analyse this set of writings.

The mode of analysis is textual hermeneutics, entailing identification of key issues and

recurring themes across the collection of fan writings (e.g., Kinsella, “Hermeneutics and Critical

Hermeneutics”). Kinsella expands on the critical understanding of critical hermeneutics and

describes it as a study of “the art of interpretation” (n.pag.) often employed in empirical

qualitative research. Kinsella observes that critical hermeneutics directs researchers to approach

an act of interpretation “not to develop a procedure of understanding, but rather to clarify the

interpretative conditions in which understanding takes place” (n.pag.). The conditions Kinsella

mentions include “the roles of language and historicity in interpretation” (n.pag.) as well as “the

prejudices individuals bring to the interpretive event” (n.pag.). Given these conditions and the

subjectivity each interpreter brings to an interpretive event, critical hermeneutics asserts that

there can never be one single interpretation that is objective and authoritative (Kinsella n.pag.).

46

Consequently, theorists of critical hermeneutics acknowledge and are reconciled with the

limitations of human beings to attain complete understanding of a text (Kinsella n.pag.). They

are interested to know what historical and social conditions contribute to shaping an interpreter’s

particular interpretive response (Kinsella n.pag.). From a critical hermeneutic standpoint,

therefore, “the uniqueness of each [interpreter’s] vantage point” (Kinsella n.pag.) is valued, and

“interpretation is seen as an inescapable feature of all human efforts to understand” (Kinsella

n.pag.) what is unknowable in its entirety.

To reiterate, the study of critical hermeneutics derives its roots from “an area of

philosophy that deals with the theory and practice of interpretation” (Philips and Brown 1547).

In its practical application, a particular attention is paid towards a transformative as opposed to

an informative nature of communication as a recipient of communications interprets what is

received (Philips and Brown 1548). A critical hermeneutic approach is often used by scholars of

social studies in an examination of organisational communicationsfor example, (1) how a

system of shared meanings can be produced and maintained within an organisation among

employees at different level of hierarchy or (2) how an advertisement with a marketing purpose

is received and interpreted by a consumer (Philips and Brown 1548). Philip and Brown argue

that critical hermeneutics directs scholars to approach a given text or communication from both

textual and socio-historical perspectives with a strong focus on how these two analyses come

together (1554-55). According to Philips and Brown, a critical element of a critical hermeneutic

approach is augmented by its attention to power relations and power dynamics within an

organisation as well as between creators and receivers of the communication (1554-55).

Researchers who employ a critical hermeneutic approach are engaged in an empirical

examination of a text or communication in question (Philips and Brown 1548). I incorporate this

47

empirical approach to communications that critical hermeneutics takes, with an understanding

that fan writing is a form of communication between a reader and a text (and perhaps, by

extension, an author), and within this communication lies power dynamics.

Preliminary analysis of both the analytical and creative writing showed and later

investigation confirmed that the following issues are important to readers: 1) Dumbledore as God

figure; 2) Dumbledore’s stance on destiny and free will; 3) Dumbledore’s early childhood and

his relationship with his family; 4) Dumbledore’s authority and control over other characters; 5)

the trauma and a sense of guilt Dumbledore carries over his sister’s death; 6) Dumbledore’s

sexuality; and 7) authorial intervention post-publication. These themes imply that issues of

morality, sexuality, subjects of remorse and atonement, as well as questions regarding individual

agency versus societal constraints are some of the important issues with which contemporary

readers of Harry Potter stories struggle. In order to track the extent at which particular themes

are explored by critical versus creative writers, I created an interpretive matrix, which can be

found in the Appendix A. One challenge of examining reader response via social media sites is

that it is not possible to determine the respondents’ gender or age beyond what is reported, and

what is reported may be part of the given fan writer’s constructed Internet identity. In light of

this particular challenge, I have not factored in how particular demographics might correlate with

forms of response; rather, I focus on broader themes and issues taken up by readers with a view

to understand what they find striking or evocative about the texts and how they interpret these

features.

4.2. Fan Sites Under Discussion

Mugglenet was created by Emerson Spartz in 1999, when Spartz was just twelve years

old (Novosel 55). According to the “About Us” section of the website, the site has team members

48

who work as managing editors, creative and marketing directors, content supervisors, as well as

social media coordinators (Mugglenet). Mugglenet offers a plethora of avenues for readers to

participate in fan activities (e.g., podcasts, blog entries, discussion boards, and chat rooms to

name a few). Mugglenet covers broader aspects of the Harry Potter phenomena and its attention

is not solely on the original books but also includes the movie versions, as well as the author

herself. My focus for this investigation is on Mugglenet’s editorial section, “The Quibbler,”

where readers post their analytical essays. The primary reason for choosing this section is due to

the existence of submission guidelines and editorial processes. The submission guidelines dictate

that essays submitted must be between 500 and 2,000 words and quotations from the original

texts are properly cited.

Another major Harry Potter fan site—The Leaky Cauldron—was launched in July 2000,

shortly before the publication of The Goblet of Fire (The Leaky Cauldron, “Timeline”).

According to “A Brief (Believe It Or Not) History of The Leaky Cauldron,” the essay section for

The Leaky Cauldron, “Scribbulus,” was born out of the website’s forumThe Leaky

Loungewhen frequent lengthy and in-depth discussions among the fans led the organisers to

realise the potential for an editorial section to which readers could submit their longer critical

pieces. There are 28 issues from May 2006 to September 2011 and editors of the website are

closely involved in the process of choosing and editing the essays submitted by readers (The

Leaky Cauldron, “Scribbulus”). As with “The Quibbler” on Mugglenet, “Scribbulus” has

submission guidelines, which dictate that essays must be at least 1,000 words, and the editorial

team offers peer reviews to ensure quality of writing (The Leaky Cauldron, “Scribbulus”).

While other fan sites, including Mugglenet, have published large numbers of fan fiction

stories, I have chosen FanFiction.net for an investigation of fan writing for the purpose of this

49

study. I made this choice because FanFiction.net appeared to offer quite a deep pool of fan

fiction stories. Alexandra Alter reported in 2013 that FanFiction.net was the largest fan fiction

site on the Internet in 2013 and, at the time of Alter’s article’s publication, offered over 600,000

creative writings based on Harry Potter stories (Alter). Secondly, Fanfiction.net offers by far the

least challenges with regards to navigating the website due to the website’s search engine and

filter systems, which allow users to search quite easily for fan fiction stories involving a

particular character. In comparison, while Mugglenet allows a straightforward search for stories

that fall into particular categoriessuch as stories that take place in an “Alternative Universe,”

stories that explore romantic pairings of characters, or stories with “Dark/Angsty (sic)”

elementsthere are limitations when searching for stories related to a particular character.

50

5. Examination of Selected Analytical Writings by Fans

In this section, I examine analytical essays posted by fans to the two selected fan

sitesspecifically, one from Mugglenet and ten from The Leaky Cauldron. Among the 119

editorial essays published by Mugglenet, there were three that featured Dumbledore at the time

of analysis in June 2014. Of those three, two were excluded, one because it was well below the

minimum word length stipulated for selection and one because, on closer examination, it turned

out that the piece was incorrectly categorised as featuring Dumbledore. Among the 194 stories

published in the course of 28 issues of editorial essays by The Leaky Cauldron site between 2006

and 2011, there are 11 essays that feature Dumbledore as the primary focus of analysis. Among

the 11, Gumshoe’s essay titled “Dumbledore is Not Dead” was eliminated from the dataset

because the focus of the essay turned out to be on the examination of Slughorn rather than

Dumbledore.

The main focus of this investigation is to study what aspects of Dumbledore’s character

prompted readers not only to write about Harry Potter but also to publish their creations online.

Some ask critical questions about Dumbledore’s character, rethinking certain previously held

perceptions about the character and shedding light on some of the relatively less explored

territories regarding his disposition. Some of the key themes analytical reader-writers explore are

somewhat different from those addressed by creative reader-writers. In order to illuminate what

common threads could be observed among readers’ analytical essays, the following examination

is divided into four sections according to the prominent topics and sub-topics that reader-writers

examine. The divisions of themes are as follows (see also Table 1 below and Appendix A for

details):

1. Dumbledore as an almost omnipotent and benevolent God-like figure.

51

Appearing in essays by birthday twins, Caltheous.

2. Dumbledore as an embodiment of the story’s morality.

Appearing in essays by Mary Wanguard, Rosamond Bane.

(Sub-topic of Wanguard: the value of online fandom as it related to reader response).

3. Dumbledore’s moral ambiguityhis propensity for secrecy and lies in order to

maintain authority and control.

Appearing in essays by Emma; Sly_Like_Slytherin; Riley Leonhardt; Ib4075;

TRC07.

4. Dumbledore as a war general working for the greater good.

Appearing in essays by Theowyn; Sarah Putnam Park.

The last point offers an interesting standpoint in examining the character of Dumbledore, for the

principle of “for the greater good” is the very one Dumbledore uses in his youth, alongside

Grindelwald, to justify the desire for establishing wizard dominance over Muggles. It is also the

principle he renounces after his friendship with Grindelwald results in the death of a sister.

Ironically, in his effort to defeat Voldemort, Dumbledore faces the questions of what is necessary

for the greater good. He is struck with the dilemma of protecting the peace and freedom of

society as a whole, while at the same time striving to protect a few whom he loves. This question

becomes a point of contention for Dumbledore when faced with a possibility of having to let go

of his determination to protect the life of loved ones in light of what must be done to save those

who are persecuted by Voldemort and his minions.

52

Table 1. Details of fan’s critical essays examined.

Author Word Count Title

1 birthday twins 2547 words The Amazing Invisible Dumbledores. 2

Caltheous 2950 words St. Dumbledore’s Feast: The Secret Identity of Albus Dumbledore Revealed.

3 Mary Wanguard 3400 words

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Me. The Causes of Crying and Squee-ing.

4 Rosamonde Bane 2800 words

Love as a Weapon: The Moral Choices at the Heart of Harry Potter.

5 Emma 5146 words Harry Potter and the Distinction Between Good and Evil. 6

Sly_Like_Slytherin 582 words The Dumbledore-Severus Relationship, Was it Really Loyalty Between Them?

7 Riley Leonhardt 2712 words

It is Out Choices, Harry, That Show What We Truly Are, Far More Than Our Abilities’: Harry Potter and Values.

8 Ib4075 1704 words Albus Dumbledore: Saint, Sinner, and Harry’s True Father. 9

The Rotfang Conspiracy ’07 6183 words Still Got Your Wand in a Knot?: Wandlore and The Elder Want Examined.

10 Theowyn 4287 words The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore. 11

Sarah Putnam Park 3572 words Dumbledorian Ethics: How Albus Dumbledore Combine Utilitarianism and Compassion.

11 stories examined in total

5.1. Omnipotent and Benevolent, God-like Dumbledore

Two of the essay contributors focus their attention on Dumbledore’s good-heartedness

and his apparent invincibility. These writers are birthday twins and Caltheous. Their writings

appear to represent a more simplified view of Dumbledore’ character; however, it should be

noted that birthday twin’s opinion piece was posted before the writer’s reading of the seventh

book, which informed many of the readers of Dumbledore’s multifaceted and more intricate

identity. A brief review of birthday twins and Caltheous’ writings reveals that regardless of when

the essays were written, Dumbledore’s goodness is an important quality of his character.

birthday twins’ comment in “The Amazing Invisible Dumbledores” summarises the author’s

respect for the integrity and benevolence of Dumbledore, of which feeling, I suspect, was shared

by many of the readers uniformly before the publication of The Deathly Hallows: “Dumbledore

has always had an omniscient quality, knowing more than [he lets on]” (birthday twin n.pag.).

The author goes on to speculate the extent of Dumbledore’s magical ability without delving

53

deeper into the workings of his heart and mind. Yet, it is worth noting that this essay, written

before The Deathly Hallows, asserts general reader perception that Dumbledore is someone

extraordinary who is capable of achieving the impossible.

In “St. Dumbledore’s Feast: The Secret Identity of Albus Dumbledore Revealed,”

Caltheous suggests that Dumbledore has a secret identitySanta Clausby using image

comparisons from illustrated book covers featuring Dumbledore to portrayals of Dumbledore by

actors in film versions. Although the playful and whimsical comparison of Dumbledore to Santa

Clause may detract from the seriousness of Caltheous’ analytical piece, this essay justifiably

suggests how some readers view Dumbledore as someone who protects and celebrates children,

delivering valuable gifts to them in the process, just like St. Nicholas, “the patron saint of

schoolchildren” (Caltheous n.pag.).

5.2. Dumbledore as a Moral Icon

Two of the eleven analytical writers perceive Dumbledore as an embodiment of the

story’s morality, revealing the motif of Dumbledore as a God-like figure. For example, in her

essay, “Love as a Weapon: The Moral Choices at the Heart of Harry Potter,” Rosamonde Bane

identifies herself as an adult reader and observes that Harry Potter offers “over 3,000 pages of an

increasingly sophisticated and mature saga that deals frankly with matters of war, torture, and

death” (Bane n.pag.). Bane perceives the concept of love that Dumbledore represents as

something with many layers, such as “kindness toward strangers” or “acts of self-sacrifice”

(Bane n.pag.). While awaiting the publication of the seventh book, Bane observed, “[t]here is a

time-honored place in children’s literature for fairy tales, in which the princess is awakened with

a kiss and true love saves the day, . . . [t]he way she [Rowling] has handled the subject thus far

suggests that she intends for the Harry Potter books to reflect an intellectually and morally

54

complex understanding of love” (Bane n.pag.). Bane further observes that Dumbledore’s

teaching would most likely resonate with readers’ sense of morality as they witness how Harry

learns from Dumbledore that one’s moral fibre is gauged by choices one makes to do good upon

navigating a difficult moral terrain.

Like Bane, Mary Wanguard perceives Dumbledore as the chief emissary of the books’

moral messages. In “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Me: The Causes of Crying and

Squee-ing,” Wanguard states that Dumbledore is her favourite character and describes him as her

role model“an ideal of whom I thought when trying to help my friends with maths (sic)”

(n.pag.). She also describes how she appreciates and admires Dumbledore’s knowledge,

humanity, his sense of humour, and his approach of not taking himself too seriously (Wanguard).

Wanguard identifies herself as a high school student from Eastern Europe on her way to

becoming a university student. Perhaps, Wanguard made such a strong personal connection with

Dumbledore because the social and political turmoil that she experienced in her own life brought

her attention to the importance of a honourable leader. Reflecting back on her childhood,

Wanguard remembers growing up in a country under tremendous pressure to establish newly

gained independence from the USSR (Wanguard). While the new system brought many

improvements for citizens such as civil and political freedom, Wanguard states, the stress of a

capitalist society made many people angry and exhausted by the pressure to become successful

and prosperous (Wanguard). Rowling’s words regarding how people choose what is easy over

what is right appear to resonate with Wanguard’s own experience. Connecting the book’s

message with her own life, Wanguard acknowledges that the Harry Potter books have provided

the courage and guidance for her to recognise what is immoral in her society, in particular, how

55

easily a person disregards his or her own principles in order to achieve material gain and success

in a newly re-organised society (Wanguard).

Having firmly established high respect for Dumbledore, Wanguard admits she was “most

shocked” when Dumbledore’s character turned “controversial” (n.pag.) in The Deathly Hallows.

She confesses that the seventh book “shook [her] image of Dumbledore so violently” (Wanguard

n.pag.) that she struggled to reconcile the idealised image of Dumbledore—the mirror of

goodness—with what was revealed about him in the last book (Wanguard). Upon some

reflection, Wanguard’s focus shifted from Dumbledore’s benevolence and moral authority to

“his sadness, his loneliness” (n.pag.) in the knowledge of the mistakes he made and the secrets

he kept. Wanguard shares her youthful acknowledgement with regards to Dumbledore’s failings

that perhaps benevolence does not equal perfection and a flawed individual could still try to do

some good in the world. What Wanguard indirectly indicates in her essay is how drastically the

atmosphere changes when the series progresses to book seven. Alongside Harry, Ron, and

Hermione, who leave the protective walls of Hogwarts, the seventh book demands emotional

maturity from readers, asking them to likewise leave the safety of childhood and the comforting

certainty of a happy ending (Wanguard).

Wanguard makes another illuminating point in her essay with regards to the pre-

eminence of online fandom when she explains why she decided to share her stories through this

specific venue. Wanguard states: “I know that I probably felt nothing too unique, nothing

different from many other readers. And yet I share those feelings here and now because I’ve got

few other places where I can hope to be understood” (Wanguard n.pag). Wanguard states that

school did not offer spaces for students to share their feelings about their literary experiences and

her family members were not keen on discussing literature. Wanguard confesses in her essay, the

56

encounter with online Harry Potter fandom enabled her to share her literary experiences with

others for the first time in her young adult life. She describes other participants in the online

realm as “always welcoming” (Wanguard n.pag.), respectful, and ready to invite likeminded

readers to join in the discussions (Wanguard). What can be observed through Wanguard’s

personal experience is how the inclusiveness and non-hierarchical atmosphere of online fandom

can be attractive to young readers

5.3. Secrets and Lies, Authority and Control—Dumbledore’s Moral Ambiguity

The remaining seven writers delve deeper into the intricacy of Dumbledore’s character

and, while acknowledging his apparent benevolence, examine Dumbledore’s actions in light of

his failings revealed in The Deathly Hallows. For example, having the advantage of writing after

the publication of The Deathly Hallows, Emma focuses on the moral ambivalence Dumbledore

displays. Emma sets out to answer this question: “[Is] Dumbledore a wise loving wizard or [an]

unemotionally calculating [one]?” (n.pag.). Emma justifies Dumbledore’s actions in his youth—

his fervent obsession with the Hallows as well as his darker desire to establish wizard

dominance—as “a boy’s mistake [rather] than . . . an unforgivable failure” (Emma n.pag.).

However, Emma strongly criticises Dumbledore’s treatment of Snape. She argues that while

Snape shows unfailing loyalty to Dumbledore, Dumbledore does not return the courtesy by, for

example, trusting Snape with vital information even when the lack of knowledge is likely to

jeopardise his ability to protect himself (Emma). Emma questions why Dumbledore does not

have the decency to warn Snape of the danger the Elder Wand brings, when Dumbledore clearly

expects Voldemort to go after Snape as the last possessor of the Elder Wand. Emma infers that

while Dumbledore repeatedly emphasises the importance of loyalty and trust in the first six

57

books of the series, the seventh book reveals how Dumbledore himself might have fallen short of

living up to his own standard (Emma).

Emma concludes that while some of Dumbledore’s actions can be excused on the

grounds of keeping vital information safe from Voldemort and his supporters, Dumbledore’s

choice to put Snape’s life in mortal danger without his consent reveals “a callous lack of caring

for a man who has shown him outstanding levels of loyalty” (Emma n.pag.). Sly_Like_Slytherin

(SLS), who writes in the editorial section of Mugglenet, points likewise to this apparent lack of

concern for Snape’s life on Dumbledore’s part as an indicator of his moral failings. SLS argues

that Dumbledore is undeserving of Snape’s trust, because although Snape is often represented as

a morally grey character, he exhibits strong moral fibre by upholding the memory of Lily Evans

and remaining truly loyal to Dumbledore. SLS asks: if remorse is a cure for a maimed soul

according to Rowling, where in the texts do we see Dumbledore’s remorse for putting so many

of his allies and friends in danger (SLS n.pag.)?

The following three writers seem to take a similar view to Emma and SLS, all

highlighting the hypocrisy of Dumbledore’s conduct. In the essay, “‘It Is Our Choices, Harry,

That Show What We Truly Are, Far More Than Our Abilities’: Harry Potter and Values,” Riley

Leonhardt questions Dumbledore’s propensity for withholding valuable information, information

without which the individual’s life can be jeopardised, from the person in question (Leonhardt).

The first part of the title of Leonhardt’s essay is a direct quote from Dumbledore in The Chamber

of Secrets (Rowling, Chamber 245), and the reference is a little ironic because it is the choices

Dumbledore makes that are under scrutiny in the essay. It appears that one of the common

threads found in fan’s critical essays focusing on the character of Dumbledore is this following

point: in the name of the greater good, Dumbledore plays God, manipulating others and keeping

58

the grand plan only to himself. In his secrecy, Dumbledore appears to defy the moral compass he

imposes on others, thereby challenging the validity of his principles by his own duplicity.

One other repeated point reader-writers make is Dumbledore’s predisposition for privacy

and reserve, his control of appearance under the façade of wit and eccentricity. A notable

exception to the detachment and distance Dumbledore maintains from others is Harry. In the

essay, “Saint, Sinner, and Harry’s True Father,” Ib4075 observes how Dumbledore matures in

his understanding of himself through his relationship with Harry. Ib4075 perceives the

relationship between Harry and Dumbledore as one that is mutually nurturing. For Harry,

“Dumbledore’s concern . . . becomes a healing part of his growing up at Hogwarts” (Ib4075

n.pag.), whereas for Dumbledore, Harry becomes more to Dumbledore than just a pawn who fits

into his great plan of defeating Voldemort (Ib4075). Ib4075 suspects that as Dumbledore grows

to know Harry deeply, “Harry’s happiness becomes [Dumbledore’s] chief concern [because

while] the ‘greater good’ is nameless and faceless . . . Harry is a real boy who needs his

protection and yet has more heart and soul than Dumbledore ever imagined” (Ib4075 n.pag.).

As Ib4075 maintains, at the outset of the story, readers see, through Harry’s eyes, only

the best side of DumbledoreDumbledore as a man of great wisdom, whose intelligence is

supported by his incredible capacity for kindness and compassion (Ib4075). What Ib4075 is

interested in examining is not the earlier relationship between Harry and Dumbledore, where

Dumbledore is perceived to be Harry’s great mentor, but their later relationship where

Dumbledore’s fallibility and flaws are made known to Harry, and with him, readers (Ib4075).

The Deathly Hallows indeed paints a rather sinister picture of Dumbledore as a man who plays a

dangerous game, a game in which people’s lives are at stake. For example, certain events imply

that Dumbledore is prepared to risk Harry’s life without his consent when Dumbledore

59

“gambles that he has guessed rightly how to get Harry to that moment [of his ultimate

confrontation with Voldemort]” (Ib4075). Observing Dumbledore to be “a very shrewd

tactician” whose brilliance is marked by “its coldness not warmth” (Ib4075 n.pag.), what Ib4075

finds disturbing here is how seemingly easy it is for Dumbledore to risk Harry’s life.

Nevertheless, Ib4075 argues that Dumbledore succeeds at regaining both Harry and readers’

trust, when he humbly admits his failings to Harry in The Deathly Hallows at the imaginary

King’s Cross station. In Ib4075’s own words, “Dumbledore disarms us all again, not with his

skill but with his humility and humanity” (Ib4075 n.pag.). Lastly, Ib4075 concludes that the

relationship between Dumbledore and Harry parallels that of parent and child, in which parents

dream that their child “will succeed where they have failed” (Ib4075 n.pag.) and “the lessons

they learned will permit their children to move forward” (Ib4075 n.pag.). In light of this view,

Ib4075 suggests that while Dumbledore may not have been a saint, he might have done right by

Harry. Ib4075 suggests this because the most important message Dumbledore tries to convey to

Harry—“the power of love and the consequences of life without it” (Ib4075 n.pag.)seems to

be embodied by Harry to the point that he has greatly surpassed his mentor (Ib4075). As an

example of this, one could refer to how Harry succeeds at uniting the Deathly Hallows acting out

of love for his family and friends without falling in the trap of advancing his selfish interests

using the Hallows (Rowling, Deathly 21-24, 288-293, 571-579).

Likewise, The Rotfang Conspiracy ’07 (TRC07) defends Dumbledore’s treatment of

Harry, while agreeing with other fan writers of their accusations of Dumbledore’s treatment of

Snape. TRC07’s essay challenges fellow readers to examine another complex layer of

Dumbledore’s character. TRC07 acknowledges, in agreement with Ib4075, that one possible

exception to Dumbledore’s habit of keeping emotional distance from others is his protégé Harry.

60

Yet, in regards to the chief accusation many fan writers place on Dumbledore—the planning of

Harry’s opportune death—TRC07 presents an interesting case by suggesting that perhaps it was

essential for Dumbledore to plan exactly how Harry should be killed in order to protect Harry’s

soul. TRC07 argues that had Dumbledore not planned for Voldemort to attack Harry with a

Killing Curse, Harry’s soul would have been at risk of remaining “conjoined with Voldemort’s

parasitic soul fragment” (TRC07 n.pag.). The point TRC07 makes here is this: while

Dumbledore may have appeared careless about protecting Harry’s life, what Dumbledore cared

for more than Harry’s life was the integrity and wholeness of his soul. While TRC07 pardons

Dumbledore on this front, he or she concurs with other reader-writers such as Emma and SLS

with regards to Dumbledore’s treatment of Snape. TRC07 observes that Dumbledore left Snape

in extreme danger, failing to foresee certain events that complicated and jeopardised his great

scheme. By making allowances for Dumbledore’s genuine concern for Harry even in light of his

cold, calculating Machiavellian side, TRC07’s analysis consequently adds more intricacy to the

understandings of Dumbledore’s character.

5.4. Dumbledore for the Greater Good

To further the discussion of Dumbledore’s moral ambiguity, Theowyn and Sara Putnam

Park present an interesting angle, which could be described as the angle of “General

Dumbledore.” In Theowyn’s analytical contribution to The Leaky Cauldron, “The life and Lies

of Albus Dumbledore,” Theowyn analyses Dumbledore by situating him in a position of a

wartime commander and a strategist. To an extent, The Order of Phoenix gives more dimensions

to Dumbledore’s character by providing readers a glimpse into the lives of the members of the

Order of Phoenix and how they see its leader, Dumbledore. This added adult perspective on

Dumbledore helps us perceive Dumbledore not only as a teacher but also as a rebel leader. In this

61

role, Dumbledore exhibits a great level of secretiveness and strong reservations towards

revealing the details of his plans to his comrades (Rowling, Deathly 65, 174, 549). Perhaps, it is

the necessity of being a leader not to be on equal ground with common soldiers; yet, it is

noticeable that Dumbledore is largely isolated from the rest of the Order members. Theowyn

questions whether Dumbledore’s apparently heartless decision-making can be viewed simply as

a wartime general making the best decisions he can under the pressures of war, whose

ruthlessness is a necessity of that condition.

Theowyn calls Dumbledore “[t]he most enigmatic character” (n.pag.). Once an “epitome

of goodness” (Theowyn n.pag.), his youthful attraction towards wizard supremacy as well as

some of his actions in his later years revealed in the seventh book challenges readers to re-

examine his character (Theowyn). Theowyn views that Dumbledore’s care for Harry is genuine

despite his willingness to prepare Harry for a path that may lead to his premature death. With

regards to this certain ruthlessness about Dumbledore, Theowyn calls Dumbledore a

“Machiavellian” (Theowyn), for he is prepared to “use others without compunction, even to the

point of plotting a child’s death” (Theowyn). Like many of the other analytical fan writers,

Theowyn finds the ability of Dumbledore to compartmentalise so that he can plan a war strategy

involving a high probability of the death of a child whom he genuinely cares for “chilling”

(Theowyn n.pag.). Theowyn also notes that for all his scheming and cleverness, one of the most

important pieces of information almost does not get delivered because it is entrusted with Snape

to be delivered to Harry at the pre-arranged moment (Theowyn). Looking back on The Deathly

Hallows, Snape barely has time to commit his final act of passing on this entrusted

communication to Harry as he lies fatally injured (Rowling, Deathly 529).

62

A further concern of Theowynʼs is how Dumbledore gains a position of authority under

the façade of a gentle and wise mentor situating himself perfectly to mould Harry into becoming

someone who does not recoil at the thought of sacrificing his own life in order to defeat

Voldemort (Theowyn). Theowyn notes that in his manipulation of others, Dumbledore takes full

advantage of his ability to uncover the core moral fibres of those nearest to him. For example,

Dumbledore has “laid out an enticing road” (Theowyn) for Harry to follow, knowing how strong

Harry’s desire to protect those whom he loves is (Theowyn). As Theowynʼs blunt description

suggests, it has been a pattern for Dumbledorethe master manipulatorto set up a path for his

lieutenants to follow without disclosing the full extent of the danger that the mission entails.

Theowyn explains: once Dumbledore knows that his lieutenants are “gone far enough that he

[knows] they [will not] turn back . . . [t]hen he step[s] aside and point[s] the way to the cliff . . .

[for] them to jump off” (Theowyn). Theowyn suspects Dumbledore predicted that even if Harry

had realised he was deceived in the particulars, once he understood the end goalthe destruction

of Voldemorthe would accept the responsibility and would want to follow it to the end

(Theowyn). As Theowyn observes, Dumbledore does not “[give] his followers all of the

information they [need] to make a free choice” (Theowyn);; instead, he “[gives] them only

enough [information] to manoeuvre them into doing what he [wants] them to do” (Theowyn

n.pag.).

Joining in Emma, SLS, Leonhardt, Ib4075, and TRC07, Theowyn reviews Dumbledore’s

relationship with his two most trusted lieutenants, Harry and Snape. On this point, Theowyn

maintains that both Harry and Snape have remained loyal and honourable in their respective

relationships with Dumbledore, while Dumbledore has done disservice to both of them by not

being forthcoming in return. In light of this observation, Theowyn eloquently notes that, “[f]or

63

all his insight into human nature, [Dumbledore is] . . . often oblivious to the emotional needs of

others around him” (Theowyn n.pag.). While recognising Dumbledore as someone who is

“capable of great patience and greatness” (Theowyn n.pag.), Theowyn makes quite a compelling

argument to expose Dumbledore’s hypocrisy in his manipulation of and control over others.

In “Dumbledorian Ethics: How Albus Dumbledore Combines Utilitarianism and

Compassion,” Sarah Putnam Park poses similar questions to Theowyn about the morality of

Dumbledore’s actions. Park subsequently attempts to rationalise Dumbledore’s actions by using

the principle of utilitarian theory. It is important to note here that it is not my intention to

evaluate the validity of Park’s assessment and understanding of utilitarian theory. I aim, rather,

to understand how Park evaluates the morality of Dumbledore’s actions using the theory at hand.

Park argues that all of Dumbledore’s decisions and actions can be explained by the principle of

utilitarian ethics, which champions the notion of achieving the greatest good for the greatest

number and stipulates that an individual action cannot be assessed for its morality until the action

in question is measured against an end result (Park).

Park points out that readers could only speculate Dumbledore’s motives and thoughts

behind his actions using the limited information the texts reveal because Rowling does not

disclose Dumbledore’s inner thoughts in details (Park). The main question Park poses is this:

when one applies the utilitarian theory to Dumbledore’s strategy, does the end (Voldemort’s fall)

justifies the means (the possible death of Harry)? To this question, Park answers that while it is a

hard and seemingly impossible decision, “the end of Voldemort’s reign of terror would justify

the sole death of one boy—Harry Potter” (Park n.pag.). Park argues when we weigh the possible

consequences of Voldemort’s prolonged control over the magical world, which means a

continued persecution of thousands of Muggles and Muggle-born wizards and witches,

64

Dumbledore’s plan to have Harry sacrifice himself is “not cruel or self-serving, but it is the

appropriate ethical decision for this particular situation” (Park n.pag.).

Park presents a counter-argument to this conclusion and further argues that while the

above conclusion may be valid from a utilitarian perspective, Dumbledore’s plan does not

respect Harry as a person (Park). Park acknowledges that one of the major objections towards the

utilitarian ethics is raised on how the theory allows for an individual to be considered as a means

to an end, denying their humanity to be respected as an end in itself (Park). In light of this

objection, Park concludes that Dumbledore is culpable of not respecting Harry enough to confide

the complete plan in him, while he is not guilty of seeing Harry as a useful instrument given the

gravity of the alternative, which is, Voldemort continued existence. Dumbledore guides Harry to

become a young man capable of assuming the task of the Chosen One, destined to defeat

Voldemort. Dumbledore does this not by changing Harry’s nature, but by “fostering Harry’s own

innate loving kindness, thereby moulding a man capable of making great personal sacrifices,

even sacrificing his own life, to save the lives of others” (Park n.pag.). Here, Park seems to

suggest that, while Dumbledore shows Harry the path he believes to be right, it is Harry himself

who ultimately chooses to take that path.

In the books, Harry wonders why it had never been important enough for Dumbledore to

entrust his plans with Harry and questions whether Dumbledore had ever truly cared for Harry as

more than just a pawn in the war plan (Rowling, Deathly 147, 267). Park wonders at this point

and is puzzled as to why Dumbledore often kept distance from Harry when it was potentially

quite damaging for Harry to experience such temperamental demeanours of Dumbledore,

someone Harry has known, respected, and sought approval and returning affection of. It is

evident from the questions fan writers raise in their critical opinion pieces that there are many

65

textual indeterminacies surrounding the character or Dumbledore. In other words, upon the

conclusion of the series, the character of Dumbledore remains elusive and consequently some of

the mysteries surrounding his character have become a source of inspiration for further

speculation and critical examination on readers’ part.

5.5. Concluding Thoughts on Fans’ Analytical Writing

One of the most interesting points stemming from the eleven analytical essays is the way

in which fans take Dumbledore’s moral failings quite personally. Fans also appear to establish

strong moral understanding through their evaluation of Dumbledore’s conduct. It is perhaps safe

to speculate that by making moral judgments in respect to Dumbledore’s actions, in a way,

readers are prompted to face and question their own moral principles. Some of the key themes

that are repeated across the eleven writings include 1) readers’ expressions of respect and trust

for Dumbledore’s goodness, 2) readers’ perception of Dumbledore as the voice of morality in the

story, and most importantly, 3) readers’ initial assessment and later re-evaluation of

Dumbledore’s manipulation and control of others, revealed most prominently in the seventh

book. With regards to the last point, some readers criticise Dumbledore’s conduct towards Harry,

while some perceive greater demonstrations of moral failings in Dumbledore’s conduct towards

Snape.

Dumbledore is a complex character comprised of often contradicting elements such as

wisdom of age, solid moral principles, propensity for secrecy and lies, as well as common human

weaknesses for power. Further, as eight of the eleven analytical reader-writers point out, for all

his visions as a master manipulator and for all his aura of omniscience, Dumbledore’s power and

66

control reached only so far in changing the course of history.2 This contrasting representation

that Dumbledore signifies seems to fascinate some readers such as Theowyn.

In the in-between place where the author, the text, and the readers meet, Dumbledore’s

character comes alive as his actions earn censure as well as passionate responses from readers. It

is evident that Dumbledore is an important character for these reader-writers because, if he were

not, they would not have taken the time to make sense of his character. If we consider reading to

be an activity that exposes readers to life experiences that cannot be attained in their everyday

lives, then online fandom allows readers to create an open forum in which they can exchange

their thoughts, thereby deriving not only personal but social value from their literary experiences.

2. Theowynʼs observation, especially, suggests that there is a parallel between free will and

destiny within the text. For example, does Harry freely choose the path of being the Chosen One

or does he do so because Dumbledore often carefully guided him to take a particular path by

controlling the flow of information? For more discussions on the issue of control and agency,

readers may refer to Drew Chappell’s “Sneaking Out After Dark: Resistance, Agency, and the

Postmodern Child in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter Series.” This parallel is mirrored by the question

of literature as changeable or determinedis a text fixed in the written words of the author or

can it be understood to be something more organic, something that can take a life of its own

through reader response?

67

6. Examination of Selected Creative Writings Posted by Fans

As mentioned above, reader-writers who take up creative writing as their method of

expression appear to approach the exploration of Dumbledore’s character a little differently from

analytical fan writers. Drawing upon Henry Jenkins’ genre classifications, most of the fan fiction

stories examined below can be classified as “Alternative Points of View,” “I Wonder If-s” and

“Missing Moments” (Jenkins 181). What these classifications signify is how fan fiction writing

is founded in readers’ desire to bridge textual indeterminacies and break out from the limitation

of the original text. The three genres respectively refer to stories that address textual

indeterminacies 1) by telling the stories from someone other than Harry’s point of view, 2) by

exploring other outcomes of a decisive event, and 3) by writing unwritten parts of the Harry

Potter stories (Jenkins 181).

I examined ten fan fiction stories posted by reader-writers. Instead of conducting an in-

depth analysis of each story, I focus on some of the key themes fan writers explore. Additionally,

particular attention is paid to personal comments fan writers leave which offer insight into what

inspired them to publish the stories, as well as what they wished to accomplish by writing and

sharing their creative pieces. On first examination, it appears that the ten fan writers that

comprise the dataset take up, as entry points for creating their own stories, the following themes:

1. Dumbledore’s little revealed childhood and family relationships,

2. Dumbledore’s sense of guilt and the trauma he endured over his sister’s death, and

3. Dumbledore’s sexuality.

To present an apparent point of observation, it appears that while readers’ analytical opinion

pieces focused more on close textual analysis, fan fiction writers, due to the nature of creative

writing, use the “facts” presented in the text as a foundation upon which build their imaginative

68

stories. In other words, one could say that analytical writers focus on what is written (yet

problematic or unclear), whereas creative writers pay particular attention to what is not written.

One of the great merits of creative stories lies in how those stories call other readers’ attention to

the unwritten parts of the original Harry Potter stories.

There are an exponential number of postings on the Fanfiction.net that include references

to the stories of Harry Potter. For example, a key word search within the site in June 2014

revealed that there were more than 2500 stories featuring Dumbledore as at least one of the

primary characters (Fanfiction.net). My method of selection was as follows: 1) I searched

Fanfiction.net for stories featuring Albus Dumbledore under the category of books and the sub-

category of Harry Potter. 2614 stories came up in this search. 2) I categorised these by relevance

and excluded “cross-overs” (e.g., stories including characters from literary source texts beyond

the Harry Potter series). 3) I limited the selection to substantive stories with word counts

between 3000 and 8000 that would comprise a manageable dataset for this study. 4) I limited the

stories to English language only. Abstracts of over 1000 stories were reviewed. Sixty stories

appeared to meet the inclusion criteria and were selected for further examination.

For the purpose of this study, I wanted the number of creative texts for analysis to be

roughly equivalent to the number of analytical texts analysed in the earlier section. The purpose

of this study is in part to illuminate how readers bridge textual indeterminacies with the

understanding that indeterminacies do not open doors to infinite possibilities for meanings, for

the text imposes certain limitations with the facts that it establishes (Freund 146; Iser 51). In light

this limitation, I therefore omitted stories dealing with settings and situations too distanced and

disconnected from the original text—for example, stories implicating characters into situations

69

well beyond the content of the original texts or stories that directly contradict facts set up in the

original series.

Of the final sixty stories, approximately thirty stories were omitted on the following

grounds:

1. The story was incorrectly identified by filters and in fact features someone other than

Dumbledore.

2. The story includes events incompatible with the events in the original series (e.g.,

Dumbledore is in fact James Potter in disguise; in short, stories that can be classified

as being set in an alternative universe).

3. The majority of the characters do not appear in the original series.

4. A story by the same fan author already appears in the dataset.

Of the stories meeting all of the inclusion criteria, the first ten were chosen for the examination.

As is the case with the examination of analytical writers, the following examination is

divided into four sections according to the topics and sub-topics that reader-writers take up (see

also Table 2 for further details).

1. Exploration of Dumbledore as a friend and a protector.

Appearing in stories by RobynElizabeth; CyborgNinjasInLove; AngelMoon Girl; The

Half Mad Muggle.

2. Exploration of Dumbledore as an arrogant and somewhat selfish young man.

Appearing in stories by biopotter; estuesday.

3. Exploration of how guilt over the death of Ariana affected and shaped Dumbledore’s

character.

Appearing in stories by MissPadfoot100; Kilara25; Wuff.

70

4. Exploration of Dumbledore’s arguably romantic relationship with Grindelwald.

Appearing in a story by Sahara Storm.

Table 2. Details of fan fiction stories examined.

Author Word Count Title 1 RobynElizabeth 3044 words Scars and Sherbet Lemons 2 AngelMoon Girl 6152 words Wolf in Friend’s Clothing 3 CyborgNinjasInLove 6978 words Recollections 4 The Half Mad Muggle 3115 words Dear Albus 5 biopotter 5573 words Albus Dumbledore and the Deathly Hallows 6 estuesday 6574 words Love and Other Childish Ways 7 MissPadfoot100 3422 words Albus’ Recollections 8 Kilara25 5428 words Wonderful Tragic Mysterious 9 Wuff 6561 words Believe in Love

10 Sahara Strom 7229 words Love Letters

In illustration of the ambiguity surrounding Dumbledore’s character in the original texts,

certain “facts” about his past are revealed through a third party who may be considered an

unreliable narrator. In the obituary for Dumbledore, for example, Dumbledore’s school friend

Elphias Doge reminisces about his youth and states that he and Dumbledore became close

friends due to their common identities as outsiders (Rowling, Deathly 21). Doge explains that

while the idiosyncrasy that excluded him from the crowd was his medical condition, what

separated Dumbledore was “the burden of unwanted notoriety [due to his father’s] savage and

well-publicised attack upon three young Muggles” (Rowling, Deathly 21). Doge recalls that

while many of his classmates pressed him to speak of the matter, Dumbledore refused to speak

of it except to confirm his father’s guilt of the charges laid upon him (Rowling, Deathly 21).

Doge observes, despite Dumbledore’s rocky start at Hogwarts, “[i]n a matter of months . . .

Albus’s own fame had begun to eclipse that of his father[,] . . . never again [to] be known as the

son of a Muggle-hater, but as nothing more or less than the most brilliant student ever seen at the

71

school” (Rowling, Deathly 22). Judging from Doge’s obituary, Dumbledore’s life at Hogwarts

was, perhaps, a journey that of finding acceptance and friends, as it was for Harry (Rowling,

Prisoner 258-61). These circumstances presented in The Deathly Hallows suggest the possibility

that Dumbledore also spent a lonely and somewhat abandoned childhood akin to that of Harry,

Snape, and Tom Riddle, whom Harry calls “the abandoned boys” (Rowling, Deathly 558).

Markedly, Doge can be considered an unreliable narrator, since his friendship with Dumbledore

is likely to make him silent on matters that can cast shadows over his famous friend’s character

and reputation. Secondly, it is also evident that there are no particular details given in the original

text as to what Dumbledore felt and how he responded to his father’s arrest or his school years.

Nevertheless, the fan fiction stories examined below offer an interesting model as to how textual

indeterminacies are bridged and how the original text is transformed in the hands of a reader.

6.1. Dumbledore—A Friend and a Protector

The following four creative writers examined below RobinElizabeth, AngelMoon Girl,

CyborgNinjasInLove and The Half Mad Muggleexamine Dumbledore’s actions and emotions

in relation to his relationship with other characters. In so doing, these writers give voice to

Dumbledore’s inner thoughts and contemplate the workings of his heart and mind in places

where the original text remain silent. In the story titled “Scars and Sherbet Lemons,”

RobynElizabeth imagines the role Dumbledore could have played in ensuring James and Lily

Potter’s continued safety. RobynElizabeth envisions in what manner Dumbledore could have

been involved in the rescue of baby Harry on the Halloween Day when James and Lily were

murdered by Voldemort. RobynElizabeth pictures Dumbledore making arrangements with James

so that the latter could inform the former of his family’s safety every night at a set time.

RobynElizabeth’s story depicts the growing anxiety Dumbledore feels during the Hogwarts

72

Halloween Feast when he notices that James has not checked in for the evening, wondering

whether the silence is caused by James’s carelessness or whether it means genuine trouble.

Itching to rush to Godric’s Hollow to ensure their safety, RobynElizabeth envisions Dumbledore

feeling restless. Eventually, Dumbledore’s gut feeling of something being terribly wrong is

confirmed when he senses the Fidelius Charm break, and Dumbledore rushes in fear to the Potter

residence, knowing too well that he is too late to save them (RobynElizabeth). In the story,

RobynElizabeth fills in the textual gaps by imagining how Dumbledore was involved in the

Potters’ protection as well as in the discovery of both Harry’s survival and Voldemort’s

disappearance, and portrays Dumbledore in a positive light by having him show genuine care

and concerns for the Potters.

In “Recollections”, CyborgNinjasInLove (CNIL) imagines that Dumbledore left a letter

to Harry imparting to the younger man the memories of his life, especially his association with

Grindelwald that affected Dumbledore deeply. Dumbledore in CNIL’s story is sensitive to the

possibility that his life may come under scrutiny after his death and Harry might be hurt and

confused to discover his mentor’s past mistakes and failures (CNIL). Giving voice to

Dumbledore regarding matters about which he remained silent in the original texts, CNIL has

Dumbledore reach out to Harry to assure him of his loyalty and trust, and that with his “very

human body and mind, one entirely capable of missteps and misdeeds” (CNIL n.pag.),

Dumbledore tried to help Harry the best he could (CNIL).

In the story “Wolf in Friend’s Clothing,” AngelMoon Girl (AngelMoon) looks at the

events that follow the third task of the Triwizard Tournament in The Goblet of Fire through

Dumbledore’s eyes. The author’s note suggests that AngelMoon decided to create this story

because she “often wondered what happened beyond Harry’s perspective on the night he

73

returned, Cedric’s Diggory’s dead body in tow [at the end of the Triwizard Tournament]”

(AngelMoon n.pag.) AngelMoon states, “[a]ll we got was a blurred vision from a barely

conscious Harry, and I’m left wanting . . . [therefore, I decided to] write it myself . . . my creative

take on the events that transpired after the Third Task, from Dumbledore’s point of view”

(AngelMoon n.pag.). AngelMoon’s story examines Dumbledore’s inner thoughts, especially his

genuine concern for Harry’s safety, as Dumbledore waits for the result of the third task in

growing anxiety, sensing that something is terribly wrong. Following Dumbledore’s inner

thoughts, AngelMoon turns readers’ attention to what ferocious fury courses through

Dumbledore under his outward façade of self-control, as he begins to realise that he was

outsmarted by Barty Crouch Jr. and failed to protect Harry (AngelMoon).

The Half Mad Muggle further contemplates the more human side of Dumbledore by

exploring his relationships with his trusted friend and ally, Severus Snape. In “Dear Albus,” The

Half Mad Muggle brings readers’ attention to Dumbledore’s generous and attentive nature

through the friendship between him and Snape. There is one particular scene that The Half Mad

Muggle creates that illuminates how Dumbledore’s past failures and disappointments led him to

demonstrate a great deal of understanding towards the failings and errors of others. In the scene

in question, Dumbledore speaks to Snape who is crushed under the weight of his evil dealings

that ultimately led to the death of Lily Potter, and offers him a piece of wisdom: “What you have

done before is in the past—we cannot change it—but we also cannot continue to live in it. We

both have dark parts in our past—but we have to move on from those and walk toward the future

instead” (The Half Mad Muggle n.pag.). Dumbledore in The Half Mad Muggle’s story continues

to console Snape: “I did not say forget [the past sins]. Learn from [them], indeed. But do not

allow your past to control your present” (The Half Mad Muggle n.pag). In short, The Half Mad

74

Muggle imagines what conversations and connections Dumbledore and Snape could have shared

beyond what the original texts disclose. In the process, the author reinforces the representation of

Dumbledore as someone to look up to and rely on in time of need—an image initially established

from Harry’s perspective.

6.2. Dumbledorethe Young and the Restless

The two following writers fill in the textual indeterminacies by imagining the details of

Dumbledore’s youth that are only briefly mentioned in the original text. In the creative story

“Albus Dumbledore and the Deathly Hallows,” biopotter draws readers’ attention to the chain of

events that took place in the summer shortly after Albus’s graduation from Hogwarts, most

particularly the circumstances that brought Dumbledore home to Godric’s Hollow. As depicted

in the original text, Dumbledore was forced to cancel his plan of travelling around the world

when he was called upon to return home upon his mother’s untimely death in order to take care

of his unstable sister (Rowling, Deathly 573). biopotter portrays the workings of Dumbledore’s

heart at the time of his returning home by closely imagining Dumbledore’s disappointment at

having to forgo his chance of a big adventure, as well as resentment towards his sister and

brother whose presence keeps Dumbledore in their little village. biopotter examines

Dumbledore’s loneliness upon finding himself in a place without the company of an intellectual

equal, and his feeling of being slighted upon realising his brilliant talents and intelligence are

being wasted upon household chores. Dumbledore, as mentioned above, exhibits these feelings

in the original text, and biopotter highlights and expands on Dumbledore’s rare exhibition of

ungraciousness, sulking in the face of a circumstance that is beyond his control that befell upon

him. biopotter portrays the youthful Dumbledore as someone with a great sense of entitlement in

the world, and as someone who is capable of harbouring a strong sense of bitterness and

75

resentment. This antipathy stems from his dreams being quashed by family obligations and the

portrayal of a young and rebellious Dumbledore provides readers with a different perspective of

the man who acquired gentlemanlike, yet reserved manners later in his life (biopotter).

The particular circumstances that expedited the close relationship between Dumbledore

and Grindelwald is explored in estuesday’s story, “Love and Other Childish Ways.” Imagining

the first encounter of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, estuesday depicts spars of wit between the

two, making it quite clear to readers what drew Dumbledore and Grindelwald together and how

powerful their magnetism was to each other. In a joint interview for The Leaky Cauldron and

Mugglenet, Rowling makes a following comment on Dumbledore and friendship: “being very,

very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his

wisdom has isolated him . . . where is his equal, where is his confidant, where is his partner?”

(Rowling qtd. in accio-quote.org n.pag.). This premise is important in examining, as estuesday

does, why Dumbledore became so infatuated with Grindelwald who was his intellectual match

when he knew very well that Grindelwald had a darker desire for power and control.

Both biopotter and estuesday bring Dumbledore to a more human level (albeit in a

different way from the first four writers examined), showcasing the intricacy of the workings of

his heart where egoism and conceitedness coexist with compassion and thoughtfulness. Neither

altruistic nor malicious, their stories emphasise all too human aspects of Dumbledore through his

shortcomings, allowing readers to have a second and a third look at Dumbledore’s character with

compassion and understanding. In one of the scenes in biopotter’s story, Dumbledore

acknowledges the feelings of pity towards both himself and for his sister and reflects: “the only

help he could provide her was superficial, and clumsy at best. When he sat alone with Ariana he

had no ease with her, no comfortable companionship” (biopotter n.pag.). biopotter illustrates

76

Dumbledore’s frustration at not being able to love his sister as he ought to and this feeling is

accompanied by his desire for a companionship with someone of equal intelligence.

6.3. Dumbledore and the Price of his Love

The next three stories—MissPadfoot100’s “Albus’ Recollections,” Kilara25’s

“Wonderful Tragic Mysterious,” and Wuff’s “Believe in Love”—address the period of time

where Dumbledore meets Grindelwald, their meeting ending in Ariana’s death, and how the

whole chain of events has affected and changed Dumbledore. MissPadfoot100 has a more simple

way of writing and only a very short analysis follows below. MissPadfoot100’s story takes place

on the eve of James and Lily going into hiding from Voldemort. Significantly, MissPadfoot100

imagines Dumbledore to have lived all his life without ever being able to disconnect himself

from his past; MissPadfoot100 illustrates this point by using the Mirror of Erised and the

Pensieve, the two instruments that allow Dumbledore to travel back to the memories of his past.

Identifying Dumbledore’s past as something that continues to shape and affect his actions,

MisPadfoot100 depicts Dumbledore working hard in order to protect the Potter family from the

hands of Voldemort, especially because he himself failed to save and protect his own family. In

short, MissPadfoot100 is one of the many fan writers who strive to connect young and somewhat

egocentric Dumbledore and aged and wise counterpart the original texts depict by filling in the

gaps between the two.

In “Wonderful Tragic Mysterious,” Kilara253 transports Luna Lovegood, whose present

time seems to be situated sometime after the Battle of Hogwarts, via Time Turner so that she

3. While it is not my intention to offer criticism to the quality of writing of the fan fiction

stories that are examined, Kilara25 should be noted for a good writing style that is particularly

notable in the story’s representation of Luna Lovegood’s speech pattern and her characterisation.

77

encounters Dumbledore immediately after Ariana’s death. Kilara25 uses Luna’s blatant yet

somehow elegant honesty and openness to bring out Dumbledore’s inner thoughts to the surface.

For example, Kilara25 has Luna proclaim how she finds it quite natural to “seek acquaintance

with other people’s dead” (Kilara25 n.pag.) because “[m]ost people aren’t very possessive of

their dead, for some reason” (Kilara25 n.pag.). This exchange between Luna and Dumbledore

illuminates how people avoid visiting the graves of their families because of the pain and regret

they bring to the living and how Dumbledore struggles to find solace in his solitude. This above-

mentioned line, while perhaps not uttered by Luna as a reproach, leads Dumbledore to open his

heart to her and speak for the first time after its occurrence about the chain of events that led to

his sister’s death.

It is easy to imagine that the burden of guilt Dumbledore carries over the death of his

sister naturally makes him want to turn back time and Kilara25 introduces an interesting plot

twist by having Luna’s Time Turner that she carries to play an important role in the story.

Kilara25’s story features Dumbledore noticing the Time Turner around Luna’s neck and being

compelled to approach Luna with the intention of grabbing the Time Turner out of Luna’s

possession by force: “[Albus Dumbledore] sees history and the rewriting of it all in a single,

delirious flash . . . one thing done differently at the right moment . . . and everything would be

different, his sins redeemed, his mind unburdened” (Kilara25 n.pag.). Kilara25 envisions

Dumbledore gazing at the Time Turner around Luna’s neck “with a hunger he cannot conceal”

(Kilara25 n.pag.), causing Luna to notice his desire and beg him not to go down that path

(Kilara25). While Kilara25 has Luna’s pleas bring Dumbledore back to his senses, Dumbledore’s

hunger to turn back time resonates with Rowling’s portrayal of Dumbledore’s behaviour upon

his discovery of the Resurrection Stone:

78

When I [Dumbledore himself] discovered it . . . I lost my head, Harry. I quite

forgot that it was now a Horcrux, that the ring was sure to carry a curse. I picked

it up, I put it on, and for a second I imagined that I was about to see Ariana, and

my mother, and my father, and to tell them how very, very sorry I was . . . I was

such as fool, Harry. After all those years, I had learned nothing . . . The stone I

would have used in an attempt to drag back those who are at peace. (Rowling,

Deathly 576-7)

Finding connections over their shared experience of losing someone close, Kilara25 has Luna

and Dumbledore talk of grief, time, and the effects of time on a grieving soul. To Dumbledore,

whose loss is much closer and pain more acute, Kilara25 has Luna pass on her knowledge that

“[t]ime doesn’t make the sadness any easier to forget . . . But I think . . . that it makes happiness

easier to remember” (Kilara25 n.pag.). By imagining someone who can see beyond human

follies and weaknesses and still find good in others, Kilara25’s story gives a gentle nudge to the

readers (just as Luna might) to re-evaluate our harsh criticism of Dumbledore’s mistakes and his

failures. That is, by introducing Luna, whom Kilara25 sees as someone who “go[es] on behaving

as though people are what they ought to be, rather than what they are” (Kilara25 n.pag.), as a

guide into Dumbledore’s heart, Kilara25 succeeds at casting a kind eye to Dumbledore’s flaws.

By casting light on Dumbledore in the time period after Ariana’s death, which is little explored

in the original text, “Wonderful Tragic Mysterious” brings together the trustworthy and caring

gentleman and his younger selfmore ambitious, arrogant and selfish perhaps yet someone with

a good heart. This in turn is perhaps revealing of Kilara’25s own compassion for Dumbledore’s

struggles to make peace with his dead family and learn to carry his burden of guilt.

79

Wuff starts off the story “Believe in Love” with an author’s note, which indicates how

the story was inspired by Wuff’s musings on “how Albus Dumbledore became the man who so

strongly believes in love after he was so terribly let down by Gellert Grindelwald” (Wuff n.pag.).

Like biopotter and estuesday, Wuff focuses on what effects the incidents of Ariana’s death had

on Dumbledore in his later life. Wuff’s writing is memorable because instead of simply looking

at Dumbledore’s trauma over the tragedy, the writer casts light onto how the tragedy shaped the

man Dumbledore came to be by following some of the decisive moments in Dumbledore’s life.

At each stage, Wuff inserts a little reflection that shows how Dumbledore forms and re-forms his

opinions regarding the power of love in light of his experiences.

A key moment that prompts Dumbledore’s reflection on the vulnerability love brings is

constructed when Wuff wondering how Dumbledore may have regarded his father’s

incarceration for attacking the three Muggle boys who taunted and traumatised Ariana. Wuff

imagines Dumbledore to have felt respect for his father’s love for Ariana, while at the same time

envisioning Dumbledore to have harboured an equally strong resentment towards his father for

abandoning his family and not considering the consequences of his rash attack on the Muggle

boys (Wuff). Wuff ponders the possibility that experiencing such an incident at a very young age

might have affected Dumbledore to be wary of such a strong attachment that could lead one to

act irrationally and cause the suffering of many (Wuff). Wuff shows Dumbledore’s

disappointment in love when Grindelwald reveals his true colour and flees Godric’s Hollow after

Ariana’s death. The portrayal of Dumbledore’s heartbreak is followed by his witnessing James

and Lily Potter being betrayed to their deaths by their secret keeper, their most trusted best friend

(Wuff). Wuff has Dumbledore reflect on the folly on James and Lily’s part for trusting their

loved ones so blindly. Wuff illustrates how Dumbledore must seriously re-evaluate the true

80

power of love due to Lily’s sacrifice as well as the discovery of Severus Snape’s true loyalty

towards Lily Potter (Wuff).

Another key scene is imagined from a small line from Remus Lupin in The Prisoner of

Azkaban, in which he discloses that:

Before the Wolfbane Potion was discovered . . . I became a fully fledged monster

once a month. It seemed impossible that I would be able to come to Hogwarts.

Other parents weren’t likely to want their children exposed to me. But then

Dumbledore became Headmaster, and he was sympathetic. He said that, as long

as we took certain precautions, there was no reason I shouldn’t come to school.

(Rowling, Prisoner 258)

In light of this textual factit was Dumbledore who worked against commonly held prejudice

and fear of Lupin’s condition to have him accepted at HogwartsWuff constructs a story that

fills in the textual gaps as to how this decision was made and in what circumstance Dumbledore

was acquainted with Lupin. Wuff imagines a meeting between Dumbledore and Lupin’s parents,

with the latter begging Dumbledore to have Remus accepted into Hogwarts (Wuff). In this scene,

Wuff depicts Dumbledore being moved by Lupin’s parents’ determination to have their son

accepted to Hogwarts. Through following these chain of events and Dumbledore’s reflections

upon each of these encounters, Wuff’s story bridges textual indeterminacies, by demonstrating

that Dumbledore’s strong convictions in the power of love is perhaps a product of a long journey

comprised of long reflections upon the subject, and observations of how people he cares for have

been affected by it. By reminding readers that Dumbledore’s wisdom and compassion have not

been gifts of nature but products of life experience and learning, Wuff succeeds at highlighting

81

why Dumbledore has always shown compassion and understanding to the misfortunes and errors

of others, making allowances for the possibilities of people being able to change.

6.4. The Gay Dumbledore

The last story to be examined is Sahara Storm’s “Love Letters.” In the story, Storm

explores the possibility of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s relationship being romantic as well as

sexual. The story follows Albus’s life’s journey in reverse chronology, starting from the period

in The Order of Phoenix and going back in time to the summer in which Dumbledore meets

Grindelwald. In the author’s note, Sahara Storm notes: “I thought it was pretty cool, to look at

their [Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s] relationship in reverse chronology” (Storm n.pag.). Storm

weaves the story from the point of bitter regret and sorrow on Dumbledore’s part, as he

reminisces on his relationship with Grindelwald. In Storm’s hands, Dumbledore is taken back in

time until the story line connects with the summer in which the destructive yet passionate

friendship/romance between Dumbledore and Grindelwald bloomed. Storm follows the timeline

back through both imagined and textually factual events, an example of the latter being the

infamous duel in 1945 between Dumbledore and Grindelwald that is mentioned in Rowling’s

original text. “Love Letter” presents Storm’s interpretation of Dumbledore and Grindelwald’s

friendship as one that is romantic through a graphic portrayal of their sexual relationship.

Storm’s two main foci seem to be on the bittersweet love story between the two brilliant young

wizards as well as on the effects of heartbreak on both Dumbledore and Grindelwald in the years

to come.

Storm highlights the connection Dumbledore and Grindelwald inadvertently maintain due

to their shared status as the owner of the Elder Wand. As described in the original text, the Wand

changes hands from Grindelwald to Dumbledore when the latter defeats the former in a historical

82

duel that brings an end to a dark era of terror and oppression that Grindelwald established. In the

original text, Dumbledore only briefly acknowledges the connection with Grindelwald, speaking

to Harry that perhaps Dumbledore was able to control and tame the Elder Wand, one of the three

instruments of the Deathly Hallows, because he took it from the previous owner, “not for gain,

but to save others from it (Rowling, Deathly 577). Storm takes inspiration from the Elder Wand,

and the connection it maintains between Dumbledore and Grindelwald, and imagines how the

Wand must have become a daily reminder to Dumbledore of the memory of the previous owner

and the mistakes he madefor example, how (as the original text discloses) his past relationship

with Grindelwald delayed Dumbledore from taking actions sooner to stop the persecution of

Muggles under Grindelwald’s reign (Storm; Rowling, Deathly 577). In short, Storm’s story gives

voice to Dumbledore and sheds light on the vulnerability of Dumbledore that is only subtly

hinted at in the original text.

6.5. Concluding Thoughts on Fans’ Creative Writing

As mentioned above, the two areas of exploration the ten creative fan writers in the data

set explore include Dumbledore’s difficult relationship with his family in his youth and his

sexuality explored through the possibility of a romantic relationship between him and

Grindelwald. This suggests that issues such as an unhappy household, sexuality, as well as the

matters of conscience and amend-making resonate with readers. In exploring and expanding

themes relating to Dumbledore’s youth beyond what is revealed in the original story, reader-

writers challenge the readers of their stories to pay close attention to the original text for

unresolved issues, vaguely framed ideas, and hinted possibilities. In short, my examination and

examples demonstrate the extent to which readers fill in the textual indeterminacies through the

medium of fan fiction writing. For example, in their creative approach to interpret the original

83

text, fan writers raise and answer the following questions that the original text alludes to but does

not fully develop:

1. How did Dumbledore feel about his father being arrested and sent to Azkaban for

retaliating against the three Muggle boys who bullied Ariana?

2. How did young Dumbledore behave towards his younger siblings? Did he ever feel

strong connections with them?

3. How did Dumbledore and Grindelwald meet and what kindled their possibly romantic

relationship? Did Dumbledore and Grindelwald still think of each other after their

fallout?

4. How did Dumbledore find courage to move forward with his life after Ariana’s

death?

5. Why did Dumbledore not share some of his personal history with Harry? Did he ever

contemplate how Harry might feel when he discovered how little he knew of his

mentor?

6. Given how Dumbledore failed at protecting his family from his own ambitions, how

did Dumbledore’s understanding of his own propensity for power affect his

understanding of others who failed where he failed?

To reiterate, Jenkins argues that fan fiction writing allows readers to make personal meanings

within a text by re-making the text to make it more responsive to their interests and concerns

(Jenkins 40). In examining the ten fan fiction writers’ endeavours to re-construct the original

text, what emerges is perhaps readers’ desire to explore issues that matter to them, such as

sexuality and family relationship.

84

On a different note, many fan writers express their gratitude for their peer reviewers and

ask their readers to review their writings, making quite evident that “the culture of participation”

(Jenkins 40) that Henry Jenkins speaks of is alive and thriving in the realm of online fandom. To

recall Jenkins’ observation, fans are not simple readers/audiences but are those who connect with

other readers/audiences and by doing so, create a participatory community of their own (Jenkins

41). Perhaps there are subtle differences between what the word “fans” implies and what the

word “readers” signifies; “readers” perhaps engage in their private acts of reading and can be

spoken of without a reference to the social connotation of reading, whereas “fans” exist in

relation to other fans due to their mutual desire for connections allows them to expand their

circle and promote their preferred text collaboratively as its champions. From the way in which

the contributors to FanFiction.net exchange feedbacks, it is evident that online fandom has taken

many of the fans into a public arena through a venue of an online fan community. There, fan

writers connect with each other through their mutual desire to explore the deeper meanings of

their preferred texts and to polish their own skills as writers. In other words, through exchanges

of agreement, disagreement, reviews, and brainstorming among themselves, reader-writers use

online fandom as an arena, in which to hone their imaginative power as storytellers and to

develop their critical thinking as expert critics of an original text.

85

7. Conclusions and Opportunities for Further Studies

This investigation started with the question of how readers and authors engage in “a game

of the imagination” (Iser, “Reading” 280) and how the thriving existence of online fandom

affects the dynamic and changing nature of reader response. After journeying through 21 pieces

of fan writings, it is evident that online fandom functions as an arena for public discussions as

well as a training ground for new writers. Iser maintains that a literary work’s true value relies on

a process in which textual indeterminacies within an original text inspires multiple

interpretations of the said text on the part of readers (Iser, “Interaction” 50). Regarding textual

indeterminacies, I turn to Karin Westman, who compares the language of Rowling to that of Jane

Austin, whom Rowling mentions in an interview in 2001 as one of her favourite authors

(Westman 145). Westman demonstrates that, akin to Jane Austin, Rowling writes from a

perspective of a protagonist and in so doing, places her readers at the mercy of the protagonist’s

limited understanding, sensitivity, and emotional maturity (148, 150-1). From the observations of

fan writings, it is quite obvious that the texts allow readers to paint only an imperfect picture of

Dumbledore because their knowledge of the character is limited to what is revealed to and

observed by Harry. Rowling’s particular writing style, therefore, encourages the existence of

textual indeterminacies that subsequently inspire readers to fill in what is not written .

Further, discussions among readers within online fandom are conducted democratically,

giving readers more power and control over their literary experience, as opposed to the often top-

down model offered in formal education settings. This observation lends support to Saxena’s

argument that online fandom has blurred the clear-cut distinction between writers and readers

(Saxena n.pag.). As reviewed above in the literature review section, Saxena reflects on the

process of reader engagements with a text, in which textual meanings are deconstructed and re-

86

made by each reader upon each reading (Saxena n.pag.). Saxena’s understanding of a text as a

more fluid entity is reinforced by the observation of fans writers, for they give new meanings to

the source text by imagining the past, alternative present, and various futures for different

characters. As Saxena observes, the thriving presence of online fandom, easily accessible to

readers of all ages from diverse geographical origins, makes it possible for active reader

participation in the form of fan writings to flourish further. A comment left by the creator of The

Harry Potter Lexicon, Steve Vander Ark, sheds light on how big an impact the development of

computer technology, and with it the expansion of online fan communities, has had on readers’

ability to reach out to other readers:

Cataloguing something as thoroughly as I tend to do is HARD WORK. It takes a

lot of time . . . and itʼs also pretty much a thankless task, since no matter how

carefully and expertly I do the work, no one ever sees and appreciates it. This time

it was different, though. This time there was the Internet. This time I could share

all this work with a few other people. (emphasis added) (“History of The Harry

Potter Lexicon,” The Harry Potter Lexicon)

Indeed, without the existence of online venues, it would have been much more difficult for me to

conduct an examination on the subject of reader-writers’ response to Harry Potter story.

7.1. Implications of the Study: The Controversy of Authorship and Authority

The relationship between readers and authors can be a controversial one when it comes to

fan writing and authorial control of texts. Readers take the settings and characters suggested by

authors’ texts and weave them into their own writing. On the one hand, some authors such as

Anne Rice are quite passionate about protecting their own characters and world and what they

see as their rights as original authors to shield their creation from fan fiction writers (Waters).

87

Such writers see fan fiction writers as exploiters and are strongly against their characters and

imaginative worlds being used in a fan fiction setting. In regards to this reality, the creator and

editor of FanFiction.net, Xing Li, stated that FanFiction.net has a long-standing policy to remove

works based on the works of authors who do not condone fan fiction stories and have requested

fan stories based on their own works be withdrawn (Waters). On the other hand, some authors

support fan fiction as a new form of free advertisement and condone, if not champion, their

existence as long as fans do not intend to profit from their writings (Waters). For example, the

author of Enderʼs Game, Orson Scott Card, who was originally against fan fiction because he

thought it violated his intellectual property as an author, eventually changed his attitude and

started to approach the fans (Alter). For example, Card hosted a contest of fan fiction stories on

his official website, advertising that the winner would have his or her work published as part of

Card’s upcoming book (Alter).

While some authors might see readers who turn fan fictions writers as tolerable at best,

readers often turn critical eyes towards authors whom they perceive as controlling the texts by

offering extra-textual facts and exercising authorial authority post-publication. Rowling’s

announcement regarding Dumbledore’s sexuality is considered to be one of those occasions

where an author is attempting to wield control over her texts after the story is published and the

official storyline is concluded. Of course, whether Dumbledore’s homosexuality is canonical or

not is another question about which academics and readers seem to be of two minds; that is,

while the text does not explicitly assert Dumbledore’s homosexuality, it can be argued that the

possibility is hinted at. For example, Gendler observes that “it seems fair to say that while it

[Dumbledore’s homosexuality] is compatible with the story’s primary truths (and perhaps even

suggested by them . . . ), it is not strictly implied by them” (emphases in original) (150).

88

With regards to the issue of what is written in a text and what is interpreted by readers,

Gendler turns to reader response theory and its implications (151-2). Gendler draws upon a

school of reader response theory that asserts that there is no one correct interpretation of a given

text and there are as many interpretations (or more since a single reader could construct multiple

interpretations) as there are readers (151). One circle of reader response theorists argue that

among these multiple interpretations any one single interpretation—even that of the author—

should not be privileged over others (Gendler 151-2). On the other hand, Gendler observes that a

different circle of literary theorists advocate for authorial intent to be one single source of correct

interpretation of a text and that it is readers’ duty to strive to understand a particular meaning an

author tries to communicate (152). In response to this author-centric view, however, some critics

raised objections even before the advent of reader response theory. For example, Wimsatt and

Beardsley, in their essay “The Intentional Fallacy” argue that the literary text “is not the critic’s

own and not the author’s (it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world beyond

his power to intend about it or control it) . . . [for] the poem belongs to the public” (470).

Wimsatt and Beardsley further object to the practice of readers deferring to the author for

meaning, maintaining that an authority of interpretation and understanding should not be granted

to the author outside the written text and that the work of critics is not to assume that of a

historian or a psychologist (471). As it is discussed below with reference to an essay posted by

Angua on The Leaky Cauldron site, this contention between authorial authority and reader

response is an interesting one especially when authors try to change the narrative of the story

through extra-textual statement after the text was published and story concluded. Given the

prevalence of online fan fiction writing and reading, this issue of the rightful place of authorial

voice post-publication is expected to become a focal point in future discussions.

89

While a shadow of a figure can be constructed from connecting small dots of details

across the seven books, large gaps of textual indeterminacies remain with regards to

Dumbledore, prompting readers to fill in those gaps with their imagination. The fact that four of

the ten creative fan writers, either directly or indirectly, address the issue of Dumbledore’s

sexuality suggests that readers respond to the textual implications and perhaps to Rowling’s post-

publication statement. It is apparent that readers find it worthwhile to examine the question of

Dumbledore’s sexuality, the answer to which the original text does not divulge. As Henry

Jenkins observes, for some readers this is perhaps due to the fact that even a hint at the

possibility of Dumbledore’s homosexuality offers a point of special connection with the story,

allowing them to explore an issue close to readers’ hearts.

Below, some discussions presented by academics regarding the position of an author as a

critic of his or her own work in an academic setting are reviewed. While their point of discussion

is not quite on the issue of extra-textual authorial communication post-publication, the questions

raised in the discussions bare some implications to the issue at hand. In the article “Critiquing

Calypso: Authorial and Academic Bias in the Reading of a Young Adult Novel,” Catherine

Butler wrestles with the question of authority and credibility of an author as a critic of his or her

own work. She asserts that while authors are “recognized as having knowledge and expertise

regarding their texts, they are typically regarded as unreliable sources when it comes to critical

analysis, and as partial witnesses whose personal association with the text is liable to influence

their judgement” (Butler 264). While acknowledging that the concerns presented above are

sound, Butler counters this position, stating that many authors and academic critics begin their

reading and examination of texts from a position where “bias is the universal condition of critical

reading” (266). In other words, all readers—including an author of the text as well as critics—are

90

far from being disinterested and are equally subject to personal and professional aspirations and

predispositions (Butler 264). With this position as a premise, Butler questions whether “authors

of fiction today stand in a place of critical privilege, or of disadvantage” (265). To partially

answer this self-imposed question, Butler asserts that for authors, “there is a constant rivalry

between the work as published and the ideal work one originally envisaged, to say nothing of its

myriad interim forms, all of which colour one’s sense of the text” (266). Butler further argues

that it is perverse to disqualify the authoran expert of a textfrom critical discussion stressing

that including the author in academic discussions is not equal to assigning to authors “the god-

like authority to determine the text’s meaning” (276). In fact, Butler argues that a critical opinion

of an author—the person who “devoted unusual amounts of time and energy to considering the

book’s form and meaning” (276)—is a rich point of reference and the writer may be relied upon

to join and perhaps lead critical discussion of the text (Butler 276). Butler here writes from a

perspective of an author who is also an academic and a critic. Unfortunately, Butler does not

contemplate in her essay what relationship could be forged between an author who wishes to

participate in the critical discussion of the text and readers who wish to stand on equal terms with

the author as interpreters of the text in that critical discussion.

Julia Moss Zarb also sheds light on the critical function of the post-publication voice of

an author, its challenges and merits (Zarb ii). In her dissertation, “From the Horse’s Mouth:

Critical Issues of Post-Publication Authorial Influence,” Zarb identifies critical values in “a

situation where the reader is empowered with the interpretive discretion to allow or disallow

post-publication authorial statements into the reading process” (iii). Zarb firmly upholds that

“[an] author may, in fact, proffer expedient detail without taking on a totalizing neo-Romantic

authority over a work’s meaning” (20). Zarb further argues that extra-textual statements by

91

authors can be considered as enablers for deeper reading when readers approach post-publication

authorial statements with an awareness of this distinction that readers can refer to authorial voice

which offer alternative entry points to the text without regarding authorial voice as offering one

true interpretative possibility (Zarb iii, 20). Drawing on the theory presented by Iser, Zarb

reiterates the point that by engaging with a fictional text, readers are invited to explore the

working of the author and characters’ hearts and minds within the confines of textual

indeterminacies (Zarb 9). Zarb maintains that during the process of reading, extra-textual

statements can facilitate alternative readings on the readers’ parts and their repeated readings will

then create further meanings (Zarb 10, 11). Notably, Zarb seems to suggest that in the current

age, readers have greater opportunities to look to authors’ extra-textual communications and still

remain to be in a position to choose freely, whether to accept, question, or reject authors’ extra-

textual voices (10). Perhaps, as Zarb predicts, discussions between readers and an author post

publication can be a part of normal dialogues within the fan community (Zarb). Although Zarb

does not mention the online realm directly, it is safe to assume that public arenas such as fan

sites, where authors directly interact with readers, contribute to a greater level of

communications between readers and authors post-publication.

Further, as Butler mentions, authors go through tremendous amount of rewrites and edits

in the course of their writing, not to mention, the changes the text undergoes during the

publication process (Butler 265-6, 276). In other words, if we take into consideration what is

edited out and added by editors who have considerations other than textual meanings and quality

of writingsuch as what is marketable and profitablethe point of publication may not be the

best place to evaluate what authors meant to leave in a given text, which is their only tool of

official communication with readers. In the big picture of the writing process, perhaps it is safe to

92

say that what is and what is not extra-textual may not be as clear-cut as suggested by some

readers who strongly reject the credibility and value of authorial statements post-publication. For

some authors, the process of writing may become much more interactive and even communal in

the context of online fan sites and the boundary of the published text may become elusive.

Instead of having their thoughts and ideas “frozen in the time and place of writing” (Zarb 24),

authors are able to clarify, defend, or expand their ideas, while readers are able to question,

challenge, and request further writings. In such a setting, both parties can suggest and prompt

further meaning-making or, as Zarb puts it, offer alternative points of entry into the text (20).

One reader-writer who alludes to an interesting aspect of the author-reader relationship is

Angua. Contributing to online fandom through The Leaky Cauldron site, Angua examine some

of Rowling’s extra-textual statements that can be interpreted as her attempt to control, shape, and

direct readers’ literary experience (Angua). First, Angua looks at a wealth of extra-textual

information with regards to Harry Potter books, which is supplied through supplemental

pamphlet books written by J.K. Rowling, details provided by Rowling through her interviews,

and Rowling’s comments and posts on her official websites (Angua). Angua notes that through

Rowling’s interviews, it is apparent the author is acutely aware of the existence and the

magnitude of Harry Potter online fandom and one can observe how her attitude shifted from

being suspicious of fan writing to being more positive towards fan stories sometime around the

publication of the fifth book, which also coincides with the launching of her own website

(Angua).

Echoing Butler and Zarb, Angua questions whether an author’s interpretation and

understanding of his or her text should be privileged over that of other readers. Angua notes that

what is potentially problematic is the limiting influence an author’s vision may have on readers,

93

if an author expresses one particular interpretation of a text post-publication. While Angua does

not explicitly condone or condemn authors’ perceived right to communicate their own

understanding of the texts, Angua suspects that authors’ views could heavily influence and

perhaps limit readers’ understanding of a text. Therefore, Angua challenges readers to question

what lasting effects authors’ attempt (either inadvertently or intentionally) to direct readers to

envision their texts in a certain way. Drawing some conclusions from literary theories, Angua

maintains that perhaps readers have the potential to expand their literary experience only when

authors detach themselves from the text after its publication and let it belong to the public.

Angua upholds this view that the text belongs to the public after its publication, making the

author’s interpretations no more relevant or privileged than those of any other reader.

Further, Angua notes that when an author establishes one interpretation as the correct

one, multiplicity of other potential meanings may dissipate, potentially diminishing the value of

literary experience for some readers. Angua explains this possibility by drawing attention to

Rowling’s desire to have Lupin’s character illustrate society’s prejudice against those with an

illness or a disability; when she voiced this vision in public, some readers who previously

interpreted Lupin’s character as representing other issues they could relate to (for example,

homosexuality) felt their relationship with the text was somewhat damaged (Angua).

Furthermore, Angua suspects that some of those readers perceived Rowling’s statement as her

“attempt to ‘control’ their readings and invalidate any interpretations that don’t match hers”

(Angua n.pag.). Moreover, to put an emphasis on Angua’s reflection on author interfering with

readers’ literary experience, Angua identifies an incident in which Rowling inadvertently

angered some readers at the Edinburgh Book Festival when she stated that she could not

understand why some female readers were attracted to the character of Draco Malfoy. Angua

94

mentions that some readers expressed indignation at what they perceived as Rowling’s

condescending attitude regarding which characters are meant to be good and which are meant to

be bad.

A noteworthy point in Angua’s essay is how Angua calls attention to a dynamic in which

an author is aware of the presence of fervent online fandom, a venue in which he or she could

choose to connect and communicate with readers, and how some authors utilise this venue to

exercise authorial control over readers (Angua). Many of the readers read the Harry Potter series

of seven books in the span of ten years, following the series from the publication of the first book

in 1997 to the last in 2007. During each hiatus, fan interactions often involved communication

with the author and after online fan sites have become prevalent, such communications with the

author took place mostly on various online fan sites (Angua). Angua observes that most fans

accept and enjoy complementary information provided by Rowling because added details further

illuminate the world and the characters Rowling created and shed light onto some of the

mysteries left by the texts. These readers regard Rowling’s actions of providing such additional

information in a positive light, considering them perhaps as her honourable efforts to connect

with her readers (Angua). On the other hand, other readers, Angua states, interpret Rowling’s

willingness to communicate with her readers through interviews and online posts in a negative

light and perceive it as her need to maintain “control over how the Harry Potter books will be

read and understood” (Angua n.pag.).

On the day Rowling’s official website was launched in May 2004 (shortly before the

publication of The Half-Blood Price), Angua reports that Rowling left a welcome message on the

website, explaining to fans that she created the website in order so that she would to be able to

reach her readers more directly and share extra information with them whenever possible

95

(Angua). While Angua acknowledges strong marketing motivations on Rowling’s part to launch

an official website, Angua also observes that Rowling seemed genuinely interested in using the

website to promote further understanding of the books as well as further connections with her

readers (Angua). It should be noted here once again that when creating exclusion criteria for

Harry Potter fan sites, one of the websites I first chose to exclude was J.K. Rowling’s official

Harry Potter website. This decision was made because official websites are controlled by

agendas that authors wish to put forward rather than those of readers. The control and initiatives

belong to the author not the readers, which defeats the purpose of examining how Harry Potter

books impact readers and how the texts inspire them to participate in online fandom. With

regards to Rowling’s official Harry Potter site, Angua is disconcerted by how readers take on

subservient positions within the website. For example, Rowling’s website features awards

Rowling gives out to fans who solve some mysteries or puzzles she sets out within the website

(Angua). For example, she gives out marks such as Outstanding and Troll, identical to the

Hogwarts’ marking system, the implication here being Rowling is the teacher and readers as her

students (Angua). As Angua observes, it is evident on the website just how much control and

authority Rowling maintains; in Pottermore, Rowling holds a hegemonic part as opposed to

being brought down to stand on equal ground with her readers (Angua).

Perhaps the outrage over Rowling’s post-publication statements—such as her admission

about the personal reasons behind Hermione and Ron’s relationship and her revelation regarding

Dumbledore’s sexuality—occurred because many readers still perceive that only the

readings/interpretations of the text that are supported by the facts professed by the author either

within a text or post-publication are authoritative and acceptable (Flood; Press Association). If

one were to take this view, an author has the power to invalidate some of readers’ interpretations;

96

this approach is then likely to introduce a dichotomy between an author-god and deferential

readers. In such cases, authorial statements post-publication can be regarded as authorial

interventions, a power play manoeuvre on the part of an author to impose control over readers’

literary experience. However, if one were to take the view that after the publication of a text,

readers and authors stand on equal ground as critics and can exchange and discuss their

understandings and interpretations on equal terms, perhaps such a view will contribute to

establishing a more amiable relationship between authors and readers, in which both parties have

the ability to facilitate further reading from the other. An aspect that is hard to resolve may be the

question of whether an authorial view should be treated any differently from that of an ordinary

reader. While there is the concern of authorial voice skewing a literary experience of readers,

readers are not in a position to know the inner thoughts of authors or what authors envisioned for

a text before some parts were edited out from the original texts in the editorial process. When it

comes to authors such as Rowling, who established her world so meticulously and with intricate

details that never made it onto the pages of the published text, it is hard to judge what is extra-

textual and what is not and a reader’s understandings of the text may very well be enriched by

these extra-textual authorial statements.

7.2. Concluding Thoughts

Possibilities for further research are as follows: 1) a continued examination of reader

response in the realm of an online realm as an avenue for understanding how literature affect

human life, and 2) a further investigation of authorship and authority, particularly on the subject

of authorial intervention post-publication. With regards to the first point, a continued

examination of reader response in the online realm can be expanded to include examinations of

other characters, other online fan sites, fan fictions stories that completely change the parameters

97

set up by an author, and how readers use other mediums of reader response to express their

reading experience. Further, both of the questions may be examined in parallel with the notion of

literature as being an undetermined and fluid entity. To conclude, the goal of this thesis was to

connect the analysis of reader response theory with the actual writings of readers in an online

fandom setting, a setting where readers develop a sense of camaraderie over their favourite

books (Borah 360-61). In addressing the research question—how does fan writing contribute to

literary experiences of readers and how does it add meaning and value to a literary work?—I

would argue that my examination of fan writings lends support to Iser’s argument that the value

of a written text lies in the convergence of a text and readers, particularly when readers engage

with a text and transform it by constructing additional meanings. The multitude of interpretive

possibilities that readers offer through their reading, re-reading, and discussions of the text with

their peers—as readers of Harry Potter stories do through their analytical and creative

writings—arguably make the original text greater in its value than what it was at the time of

publication. Employing Ingarten’s metaphor once again, a text is like a musical score; it takes a

true life form only when a performer plays its music (Green and LeBihan 188). In this manner, a

text becomes multi-dimensional and more organic, acquiring further depth for readers to marvel

at. Harry Potter fandom has grown and flourished because readers discovered meaningan

element that spoke to themwithin the story that affected them personally in some way to the

extent that they wished to share their experience with others. In this process, an individual

reader’s personal experience is transformed into a social one.4 Literature as the work of art then

4. In the spirit of ending with the very beginning, the history of the Harry Potter books is to

be biographically situated below, for it is evident that keen eyes of a few readers played a key

role in bringing Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone into the world. Initially, the

98

becomes an entity with expanding social meaning and history that are co-constructed by its

readers. The Harry Potter universe, as with the universe of any set of literary texts, extends well

beyond the books themselves.

manuscript for Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone was sent to a reject bin at Christopher

Little’s literary agency (Smith n.pag.). However, Bryony Evens, an office manager to

Christopher Little, picked up the manuscript from the reject bin because its unusual binding

caught her eyes and she soon afterwards handed the manuscript to Little with her great

commendation (Smith n.pag.). Little then called at Bloomsbury Publishing office and handed a

sample of the manuscript to Nigel Newton, the CEO of Bloomsbury Publishing (Lawless n.pag.).

Newton took the manuscript home but instead of examining it himself handed it to Alice, his

eight years old daughter (Lawless n.pag.). Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone’s fate was

sealed when Alice “came down from her room an hour later glowing” (Lawless n.pag.) and told

her father, “Dad, this is so much better than anything else” (Lawless n.pag.).

99

Works Cited

Admiraal, Beth, and Regan Lance Reitsma. “Dumbledore’s Politics.” The Ultimate Harry Potter

and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken, New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 113-27. Print.

Alter, Alexandra. “The Weird World of Fan Fiction.” The Wall Street Journal 14 Jun. 2012.

Web. 20 Dec. 2013.

<http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023037342045774644118259704

88>.

AngelMoon Girl. “Wolf in Friend’s Clothing.” 21 Aug. 2009. Fanfiction.net. Web. 16 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5321053/1/Wolf-in-Friend-s-Clothing>.

Angua. “If the Author is Dead, Who’s Updating Her Website? – J.K. Rowling and the Battle for

the Books.” Scribbulus 9 (Oct. 2006): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 2 May

2014. <http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue9/authordead>.

Bane, Rosamonde. “Love as a Weapon: The Moral Choices at the Heart of Harry Potter.”

Scribbulus 16 (May. 2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.

<http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue16/LoveasaWeapon>.

Bassham, Gregory. “Choices vs. Abilities: Dumbledore on Self-Understanding.” The Ultimate

Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken,

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2010. 157-71. Print.

– – –. “Love Potion No. 9 3/4.” The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for

Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2010.

66-79. Print.

100

Bennett, Andrew. “Introduction.” Readers and Reading. Ed. Andrew Bennett. Longman, New

York, 1995. 1-19. Print.

biopotter. “Albus Dumbledore and the Deathly Hallows.” 30 Mar. 2008. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14

Jun. 2014. <https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4166096/1/Albus-Dumbledore-and-the-Deathly-

Hallows>.

birthday twins. “The Amazing Invisible Dumbledores.” Scribbulus 18 (Jul. 2007): n. pag. The-

Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue18/amazinginvisibleDD>.

Blackford, Holly. “Private Lessons from Dumbledore’s ‘Chamber of Secrets’: The Riddle of the

Evil Child in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.” Literature Interpretation Theory

22. 2 (2011): 155-75. Taylor & Francis Online. Web. 20 Jun. 2013.

Bond, Ernie, and Nancy Michelson, “Writing Harry’s World: Children Coauthoring Hogwarts.”

Harry Potter’s World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives. Ed. Elizabeth E. Heilman.

New York: Routledge Falmer, 2003. 109-22. Print.

Borah, Rebecca Sutherland. “Apprentice Wizards Welcome: Fan Communities and the Culture

of Harry Potter.” Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon.

Ed. Lana A. Whited. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 2002. 343-64. UBC

Ebrary Academic Complete Subscription Collection. Web. 7 Nov. 2013.

Butler, Catherine. “Critiquing Calypso: Authorial and Academic Bias in the Reading of a Young

Adult Novel.” Children’s Literature in Education 44 (2013): 264–79. Springer. Web. 23

May 2014. <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10583-012-9189-9>.

101

Caltheous. “St. Dumbledore’s Feast: The Secret Identity of Albus Dumbledore Revealed.”

Scribbulus 21 (Dec. 2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Jun. 2013.

<http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue21/Dumbleclaus>.

Chappell, Drew. “Sneaking Out After Dark: Resistance, Agency, and the Postmodern Child in

JK Rowling’s Harry Potter Series.” Children’s Literature in Education 39. 4 (2008): 281-

93. Springer. Web. 21 May 2013.

CyborgNinjasInLove. “Recollections”. n.d. Fanfiction.net. Web. 16 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10085761/1/Recollections>.

Davies, James A. John Forster, a Literary Life. Lenham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield,

1983. 166-9. Print.

Emma. “Harry Potter and the Distinction Between Good and Evil.” Scribbulus 20 (Nov. 2007):

n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 12 Mar. 2014. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue20/HarryPotterandtheDistinctionBetweenGoodandEvil

>.

estuesday. “Love and Other Childish Ways.” 1 Aug. 2008. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4439751/1/Love-and-Other-Childish-Ways>.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities.

President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1980. GoogleScholar. Web. 25 Aug. 2014.

<http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bYBso1t4ylcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=sta

nley+fish+interpretive+community&ots=k8y4DEQ0pD&sig=aoHPsR8NRzgAK-

UYuNe08A4WxlI#v=onepage&q=stanley%20fish%20interpretive%20community&f=fal

se>.

102

Flood, Alison. “JK Rowling Backtracks on ‘Harry Potter heresy’: Full Interview with Emma

Watson in Wonderland Magazine Shows Author Qualifying Doubts over Ron and

Hermione’s Marriage.” The Guardian 10 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Jun. 2014.

<http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/10/jk-rowling-harry-potter-heresy-ron-

hermione>.

Freund, Elizabeth. “The Peripatetic Reader: Wolfgang Iser and the Aesthetics of Reception.”

The Return of the Reader: Reader-response Criticism. New York: Methuen, 1987. 134-

51. Print.

Gendler, Tamar Szabo. “Is Dumbledore Gay? Who’s to Say?” The Ultimate Harry Potter and

Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham. Hoboken, New Jersey: John

Wiley & Sons, 2010. 143-56. Print.

Green, Keith, and Jill LeBihan. Critical Theory and Practice: A Coursebook. New York:

Routeledge. 1996. Print.

Grossman, Lev. “The Boy Who Lived Forever.” Time 7 Jul. 2011. Web. 20 Dec. 2013.

<http://content.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2081784-1,00.html>.

Harkin, Patricia. “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory.” College Composition

and Communication 56. 3 (Feb. 2005): 410-25. JSTOR. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.

<http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/30037873.pdf?

acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true>.

Ib4075. “Albus Dumbledore: Saint, Sinner, and Harry’s True Father.” Scribbulus 21 (Dec.

2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Jun. 2013. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue21>.

103

Iser, Wolfgang. “Interaction between Text and Reader.” Readers and Reading. Ed. Andrew

Bennett. New York: Longman, 1995. 20-65. Print.

– – –. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University

Press, 1979. Print.

– – –. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach.” New literary history 3. 2 (1972):

279-99. JSTOR. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

– – –. “The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach.” Reader-response Criticism:

From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Ed. Jane P. Tompkins. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1980. 70-100. Print.

Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New

York University Press, 2006. ACLS Humanities E-Book. Web. 22 Dec. 2013.

<http://quod.lib.umich.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/cgi/t/text/text-

idx?c=acls;idno=heb05936>.

– – –. Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York

University Press, 2006. Project Muse. Web. 22 Dec. 2013.

<http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ubc/docDetail.action?docID=10176209>.

– – –. Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. 1992. New York:

Routedge, 2013. UBC ezproxy. Web. 22 Dec. 2013.

<http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/(S(uhqlji31ahssdpzxh3zkajlx))/Reader.a

spx?p=1097854&o=1267&u=R0zCsScHxvo%2frdywhciqIA%3d%3d&t=1410416888&

h=C7FF5E04941D87618BFC4BD4EE87AB0460F1170E&s=26065707&ut=4226&pg=

1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1&sd=2#>.

104

Kilara25. “Wonderful Tragic Mysterious.” 29 Jun. 2009. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/5175638/1/Wonderful-Tragic-Mysterious>.

Kinsella, Elizabeth Anne. “Hermeneutics and Critical Hermeneutics: Exploring Possibilities

Within the Art of Interpretation.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7. 3 (2006).

Digital Library of the Commons. Web. 9 Mar. 2014. <http://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/145>.

Lawless, John. “The Eight-year-old Girl who Saved Harry Potter.” New Zealand Herald 3 Jul.

2005. Web. 30 May 2012.

<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/news/print.cfm?objectid=10333960>.

Leitch, Vincent B. “Reader-response Criticism.” Readers and Reading. Ed. Andrew Bennett.

New York: Longman, 1995. 32-65. Print.

Leonhardt, Riley. “‘It is Out Choices, Harry, That Show What We Truly Are, Far More Than

Our Abilities’: Harry Potter and Values.” Scribbulus 27 (Jan. 2011): n. pag. The-Leaky-

Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Jun. 2013. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue27/it-is-our-choices-harry-that-show-what-we-truly-

are-far-more-than-our-abilities>.

Malu, Kathleen F. “Ways of Reading Harry Potter: Multiple Stories for Multiple Reader

Identities”. Harry Potter’s World: Multidisciplinary Critical Perspectives. Ed. Elizabeth

E. Heilman. New York: Routledge Falmer, 2003. Print.

MissPadfoot100. “Albus’ Recollections.” 4 Nov. 2012. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8673047/1/Albus-Recollections>.

Natov, Roni. “Harry Potter and the Extraordinariness of the Ordinary.” The Lion and the

Unicorns 25. 2 (2001): 310-27. Project Muse. Web. 9 Nov. 2012.

105

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journals/lion_and_the_unicorn/v025/25.2nat

ov.html>.

Novosel, Jadranka. The Harry Potter Phenomenon and its Implications for Literacy Education.

MA thesis. University of British Columbia, 2010. CircleUBC. Web. 24 Jul. 2013.

Park, Sarah Putnam. “Dumbledorian Ethics: How Albus Dumbledore Combines Utilitarianism

and Compassion.” Scribbulus 21 (Dec. 2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10

Jun. 2013. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue21/DumbledorianEthics>.

Phillips, Nelson and John L. Brown. “Analyzing Communication in and around Organizations:

A Critical Hermeneutic Approach.” The Academy of Management Journal 36. 6 (1993):

1547-1576. JSTOR. Web. 18 Oct. 2014.

Pond, Julia. “A Story of the Exceptional: Fate and Free Will in the Harry Potter series.”

Children’s Literature 38 (2010): 181-206. Project Muse. Web. 4 Jun. 2012.

Poyas, Yael. “Exploring the Horizons of the Literature Classroom – Reader Response,

Reception Theories and Classroom Discourse.” L1-Educational Studies in Language &

Literature 4. 1 (2004): 63-84. Education Source. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

<http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=370a853e-324a-4ee4-aab3-3b7ea7f0aa33%40sessionmgr4001&vid=2&hid=4106>.

Press Association. “JK Rowling: Hermione Should Have Married Harry, not Ron: Magical

Series Author Says Pairing of Bright, Ambitious Witch with Languid, Surly Wizard was

Personal Rather than Literary Decision.” The Guardian 2 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Jun. 2014.

<http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/feb/02/jk-rowling-hermione-harry-ron-

married>.

106

RobynElizabeth. “Scar and Sherbet Lemons.” 30 Jun. 2013. Fanfiction.net. Web. 17 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/9442965/1/Scars-and-Sherbet-Lemons>.

Rowling, J. K. Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. London: Bloomsbury, 1998. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. London: Bloomsbury, 2007. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. London: Bloomsbury, 2000. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. London: Bloomsbury, 2005. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix. London: Bloomsbury, 2003. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. London: Bloomsbury, 1997. Print.

– – –. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. London: Bloomsbury, 1999. Print.

– – –. Interview with Lizo Mzimba. (2003). Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Dir. Chris

Columbus. Perf. Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson. Warner Brothers

Pictures, 2002. DVD.

– – –. Interview with Melissa Anelli and Emerson Spartz. (16 Jul. 2005). Web. 15 Aug. 2014.

accio-quote.org. <http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-

1.htm>.

Saxena, Vandana. “Critical Essay – ‘And the Story Goes On ...’: Harry Potter and Online Fan

Fiction.” Technoculture: an online journal of technology in society 2 (2002): n. pag.

Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://tcjournal.org/drupal/vol2/saxena>.

Schlaeger, Jurgen. “Wolfgang Iser: Legacies and Lessons.” Comparative Critical Studies 7. 2-

3 (2010): 311–24. Edinburgh University Press. UBC library ezproxy. Web. 26 Oct.

2013.

<http://www.euppublishing.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/ccs.2010.0

014>.

107

Schweickart, Patrocinio P., and Elizabeth A. Flynn. “Introduction.” Reading sites: Social

Difference and Reader Response. Eds. Patrocinio P. Schweickart and Elizabeth A.

Flynn. New York: The Modern Language Association of America, 2004. 1-38. Print.

Sharp, Savannah. “J.K. Rolwing’s Innovative and Authoritative Online Presence.” Teaching

with Harry Potter: Essays on Classroom Wizardry from Elementary School to

College. Ed. Valerie Estelle Frankel. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &

Company, 2013. 107-116. UBC library ezproxy. Web. 20 Jun. 2013.

<http://reader.eblib.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/(S(d3e2g2rimcdv52n05jcroyn0))/Rea

der.aspx?p=1126324&o=1267&u=R0zCsScHxvo%2frdywhciqIA%3d%3d&t=14082

99110&h=03B9425BD8B0EAB393CCDAD9F772BA2F72F43093&s=25703034&u

t=4226&pg=1&r=img&c=-1&pat=n&cms=-1#>.

Shi, Yangling. “Review of Wolfgang Iser and His Reception Theory.” Theory and Practice

in Language Studies 3. 6 (2013): 982-6. Education Source. Web. 20 Nov. 2013.

<http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?

sid=c36b41e5-2d3c-4400-a5f1-

fefe89068bf7%40sessionmgr4002&vid=2&hid=4106>.

Sly_Like_Slytherin. “The Dumbledore-Severus Relationship, Was it Really Loyalty Between

Them?” The Quibbler 6 Mar. 2007. Mugglenet.com. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.

<http://www.mugglenet.com/2012/03/the-dumbledore-severus-relationship-was-it-really-

loyalty-between-them/>.

Smith, David. “Harry Potter and the Man who Conjured up Rowling’s Millions.” The Observer

15 Jul. 2007. Web. 30 May 2012.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jul/15/harrypotter.books/print>.

108

Storm, Sahara. “Love Letters.” 19 Dec. 2007. Fanfiction.net. 21 Jul. 2013.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/3954928/1/Love-Letters>.

Teare, Elizabeth. “Harry Potter and the Technology of Magic.” Ivory Tower and Harry Potter:

Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon. Ed. Lana A. Whited. Columbia, MO: University

of Missouri Press, 2002. 329-42. UBC Ebrary Academic Complete Subscription

Collection. Web. 28 Nov. 2013.

The Half Mad Muggle. “Dear Albus”. 4 Jun. 2011. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/7049900/1/Dear-Albus>.

The Half Mad Muggle. “Letter From a Dead Man.” 27 Jul. 2011. Fanfiction.net. Web. 16 Jun.

2014. <https://www.fanfiction.net/s/7223355/2/Letters-From-A-Dead-Man>.

The Rotfang Conspiracy ’07. “Still Got Your Wand in a Knot?: Wandlore and The Elder Want

Examined.” Scribbulus 21 (Dec. 2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Mar.

2014. <http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue21/Wandknot>.

Theowyn. “The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore.” Scribbulus 21 (Dec. 2007): n. pag. The-

Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Jun. 2013. <http://www.the-leaky-

cauldron.org/features/essays/issue21/LifeandLiesAlbusDumbledore>.

Thomas, Bronwen. “What Is Fanfiction and Why Are People Saying Such Nice Things about

It?” Storyworlds: A Journal of Narrative Studies 3. 1 (2011): 1-24. JSTOR. Web. 2 Dec.

2013.

<http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/pdfplus/10.5250/storyworlds.3.2011

.000 1.pdf?acceptTC=true&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true>.

109

Tompkins, Jane P. “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism.” Reader-response Criticism:

From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. Ed. Jane P. Tompkins. Baltimore: The Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1980. ix-xxvi. Print.

Tosenberger, Catherine. “Homosexuality at the Online Hogwarts: Harry Potter Slash Fanfiction.”

Children’ Literature 36 (2008): 185-207. Project Muse. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.

– – –. “‘Oh my God, the Fanfiction!’ Dumbledore’s Outing and the Online Harry Potter

Fandom.” Children’ Literature Association 33. 2 (2008): 200-6. Project Muse. Web. 26

Feb. 2013.

Wanguard, Mary. “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Me. The Causes of Crying and

Squee-ing.” Scribbulus 29 (Oct. 2007): n. pag. The-Leaky-Cauldron.org. Web. 10 Mar.

2014. <http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue19/HPDHandMe>.

Waters, Darren. “Rowling Backs Potter Fan Fiction.” BBC News 27 May. 2004. news.bbc.co.uk

Web. 20 Dec. 2013. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm>.

Westman, Karin, E. “Perspective, Memory, and Moral Authority: The Legacy of Jane Austin in

J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter.” Children’s Literature 35 (2007): 145-65. Project Muse.

Web. 2 Aug. 2013.

– – –. “The Weapon We Have is Love.” Children’s Literature Association 33. 2 (2008): 193-9.

Project Muse. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

<http://muse.jhu.edu.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journals/childrens_literature_association_qua

rte rly/v033/33.2.westman.html>.

Williams, David Lay and Alan J. Kellner. “Dumbledore, Plato, and the Lust for Power”. The

Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles. Ed. Gregory Bassham.

Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. 128-42. Print.

110

Wimsatt Jr., William Kurtz, and Monroe Curtis Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The

Sewanee Review 54. 3 (1946): 468-88. John Hopkins University Press. JSTOR. Web. 25

Aug. 2014. <http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/27537676>.

Woolf, Virginia. The Common Reader – First Series. (1925). The University of Adelaide.

eBooks@Adelaide. Web. 16 Feb. 2014.

<http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/w/woolf/virginia/w91c/chapter12.html>.

Wuff. “Believe in Love.” 3 Mar. 2008. Fanfiction.net. Web. 14 Jun. 2014.

<https://www.fanfiction.net/s/4109469/1/Believe-in-Love>.

Zarb, Julia Moss. From the Horse’s Mouth: Critical Issues of Post-Publication Authorial

Influence. Diss. University of Toronto, 2001. ProQuest. Web. 23 May 2014.

<http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/438/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10583-012-

9189-9.pdf?auth66=1401056264_bc8d10dd97b65af321d795199a7a1afc&ext=.pdf>.

111

Appendix A. Themes covered by fan writing across analytical and creative writing

author type of writing

Word count

source Albus Dumbledore as the God figure

Albus as a father/ mentor

Destiny & free will

childhood & family

Trauma & sense of guilt

Albus’ moral ambiguity

Authority & control, secrets & lies

Sexuality Author authority & Authorial control

1 birthday twins critical 2547 L x 2 Caltheous critical 2950 L x 3 Mary Wanguard critical 3400 L x x x 4 Rosamonde Bane critical 2800 L x x 5 Emma critical 5146 L x x x 6 Sly_Like_Slytherin critical 582 M x x 7 Riley Leonhardt critical 2712 L x x x x 8 Ib4075 critical 1704 L x x x x 9 The Rotfang

Conspiracy ’07 critical 6183 L x x x

10 Theowyn critical 4287 L x x x x 11 Sarah Putnam Park critical 3572 L x x x x 1 RobynElizabeth creative 3044 F x 2 AngleMoon Girl creative 6152 F 3 CyborgNinjasInLove creative 6978 F x x x x 4 The Half Mad Muggle creative 3115 F x x x 5 biopotter creative 5573 F x x 6 estuesday creative 6574 F x 7 MissPadfoot100 creative 3422 F x 8 Kilara25 creative 5428 F x x 9 Wuff creative 6561 F x x x x 10 Sahara Strom creative 7229 F x x x Angua critical 8867 L x M=Mugglenet, L= The Leaky Cauldron, F=Fanficion.net