Is Ron Dumbledore?? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios 

Ron is Dumbledore is a much more boring theory than Ron is secretly an amazing seer. Almost all of the random stuff he makes up for divination homework turns out to be true. And it could actually be true, if he either never realises it or comes into this full power as Seer after the timeline of the series (like during Auror training maybe).

I think the importance of authorial intent matters only as much as you are concerned with the theory being correct. For some theories, the intent is to find the truth or hidden message/idea in a work, and for others it's a fun thought exercise. If the truth is what you seek, then authorial intent is paramount. But if you only want to mess around with the ideas of the universe and see if you can have a theory make sense by the end of it, then authorial intent is irrelevant. For example, in regards to the Darth Jar Jar theory, if George Lucas himself were to come out and say that the theory was wrong my response would be a resounding DON'T CARE. It's just so fun to think about and it actually improves the first movie in my mind, the truth is less important than enjoying the experience of believing that we were all deceived by an author who did his job too well, in creating a character who fooled not only those around him but us the viewers into believing he was a harmless bumbling fool.

If you rearrange the letters in Albus Dumbledore, it spells "I am Ron Weasley."

What... what about Dumbledore's entire past and family???

There's that John Green quote about books belonging to the readers that I like a lot. I personally don't need or want confirmation by a kind of authority figure that labels fan theories as either true or false. I've made a few of my own fan theories regarding comic book characters that I think are pretty convincing, and the last thing I want is to have Marvel or DC tell me that the thing I spent countless hours researching and writing out is just plain false. And if they confirm it as true, then it takes all the fun out of explaining my logic and reasoning to my friends. Instead of saying "This story and this event and this line of dialogue all point to the idea that this theory is true," I instead only need to say "It's true because the writer said so."

I think it's very easy to muddy the issue when a symbolic or metaphorical arc is taken in the most literal possible sense. Once you find a simpler explanation for Dumbledore's foresight (for example, that he's simply an exceptional magician - we already knew that he's one of the best), the hypothesis falls apart, and leaves nothing but correlations and speculations. And those correlations are more easily explained by the arc. The conclusion, I think, is spurious. It's not that "Ron and Dumbledore are similar, therefore Ron is Dumbledore", but perhaps "Ron reminds Dumbledore of himself", which would explain things like giving Ron the deluminator. It's a symbolic element. It gives depth to our understanding of the characters, and I think taking it in a literal manner trivializes that depth.

Here's what I think: PLEASE DON'T STOP THE THEORY VIDEOS

I think Ron is definitely meant to *parallel* Dumbledore; the little things like their shared love of sweets and their similar appearance are a nice little nod to the larger comparisons between their narratives- the family grievances, the friend digging themselves into deeper and deeper trouble, etc. I think Ron is supposed to be what Dumbledore wishes he could have been at his age.

Here's a fan theory: Ms. Frizzle is a time lord.

I'm following a course on literature and my professor believes authors have no authority over the meaning of their works. Make of that what you will.

The last video about ad blocker and the presence of ads in online content was not sponsored. This one was. I'm not saying anything other than that I definitely noticed.

Dumbledore is Gay, Ron is not. Case closed. 😂😂😂😂

But ron marry's hermione... And dumbledore is gay

Dumbledore is gay. Ron is not. Theory busted lol.

I don't like the idea of fan theories being used to assume authority over the actual story, like you mention around 7:30. In my experience, the vast majority of fan theories around are not ones that fans want to be "true". Rather, coming up with a theory is a Gedankenexperiment, where the goal is to probe the logics and internal workings of a piece of fiction by inserting a knowingly ridiculous assumption. Fan theories are an act of discovery, not an act of power.

MIKE MIKE MIKE you showed The Point at 7:03! I thought I was the only person in the world who knew that movie! I used to watch it all the time when I was little! You just happy nostalgia slapped me in the face!

You have got to do one on undertale and how it changes people's perspective of killing in video games.

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me, this is the difference between a theory and a headcanon. At least when I use those words, a theory is something that I think is actually true about the canon, while a headcanon is an idea I enjoy pretending is true. Whether or not truth depends on the work by itself or the author's intentions is a seemingly endless debate, but I choose to consider Rowling's comments as part of the canon because for me it's more fun that way. This seems like a debate over semantics more than anything else, really.

no dumbledore was brilliant in school, we all know ron is not.

I'd have thought that everyone had agreed that this fan theory no longer held any water after Dumbledore's childhood was detailed and used as a posthumous character motivation in the final book.

"I'm in a hotel room! Tell us what you think in the comments!" I think it's great that you're in a hotel room. Looks fancy. Are you there for a fun event?

This channel is becoming (Game Theory + Film Theory)/2. Something I am not opposed to.

Does anyone know what the clip of the white boy walking next to a purple thing is at 7:04

Can someone please tell me what the poster on the far left, on the same level as his head, is of? It's familiar, but I can't place it. And I just spent 45 minutes trying decypher the text to no avail.

Hermione = McGonagall just to keep dumbleron from mucking things up because timewimey

I keep coming back to two thoughts about authorial intent. First, I more or less agree with John Green's take on the matter, which is that "books belong to their readers"--BUT it is still entirely possible to interpret a work incorrectly. As he put it, "If you think 'Huckleberry Finn' is a pro-slavery novel, you're wrong.'" Second, am I expected to believe that if J.K. Rowling tweets a fact about the "Harry Potter" universe, it may or may not matter, but if she were to publish a short story about *that very same fact*, suddenly that would be canon? I'm not quite sure how this relates to authors striking down fan theories, nor how I feel about that, but for some reason that dichotomy just doesn't sit right with me.

Personally, I think one of the best things about fan theories is that in the end, it doesn't truly matter whether or not it's correct. Especially if the series or updates to the canon of the story are done. You see, the magic of making theories about characters in any fandom, is that generally, there is no one to say you're right or wrong. It allows fans to go on diatribes about how Ron is obviously Dumbledore for reasons A-Z and since the only thing that is and can support the theory is the little nuances of canon; it works. Either your post or series of posts about the theory work together to convince people, or it just stays your own head canon. However, in series where the content is being updated, it's fascinating seeing how the authors and writers respond to the fan theories through their updates to canon. Actually, what's even better, is the kind of super vague fore-shadowing on the part of the author that makes the theory seem only semi-plausible, before later being confirmed through an update to canon. Perfect example of this is the fan theory that was developed on Tumblr about the character Stan Pines from the TV show Gravity falls. *MAJOR SPOILERS FROM HERE ON* The theory was, that from background scenes in the early episodes in the cartoon, Stanford Pines had a twin brother named Stanley Pines. The theory was started and developed in the infancy of the cartoon, maybe only a year or less after the start of the 1st season. Time passed an the theory was slowly gaining a following, but overall, was kept on the back burner. Then about 6 months ago or so, Season 2 Episode 11 came out and confirmed the fan theory beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, up until that point, there had been no word confirming, nor denying, that the theory had any merit from the show's creators, despite them keeping up semi-regular dialogue with the fans. *SPOILERS DONE* Anyways, I guess it all just boils down to how you enjoy your theories: Something to speculate on, but no word for or against from the creator of the canon; or something that you want to find out if it's true, and your research is fruitful, or completely null. I personally enjoy the first option myself, but I'm also in canon dead fandoms for the most part; fandoms where the canon has not been updated in awhile nor will it ever be. So active theories that could be proven are for the most part, not even applicable. -probably why I like the gf fandom so much cause it's active and the updates are coming regularly- P.S. Thanks for sticking around for this. I don't comment on these much, but since I like this topic thought I'd get my "thoughts on paper".

As a writer: The concept of a story branches out significantly from the point of public consumption. As soon as a second person has received an explanation of the story via reading it or being told about its elements, there are now two stories. The "true" or "original" is still very much with the author, but a new story has begun through interpretation. Ron is Dumbledore in the story that exists within the people who buy into that theory. The original which only J.K.R. has, does not involve that fact. The story may change after it's been published. Rowling may one day decide that her preferred couple is how the story really went and then the books themselves are "incorrect" to that, but since we're working with ideas the concept of original and true are very.... very much missing the point. Are you a fan of batman? Do you think he's a selfless hero? Then he is. Batman as told in the story another person has might be that he's a violent psychopath with delusions of grandeur. That's equally valid. Word of God could come out and say it was all in a coma and that would be technically true, but for those who refuse to acknowledge it, their batman remains a deeply troubled man trying to correct the mistakes of his youth by re-imagining his past.

"I see them as the audience assuming authority, unconcerned with what the powers that be have to say." YES. The authorial no-explanation assertion that the theory is FALSE does not play within the operating logic of fan theories. It is, of course, her prerogative to assert whatever she likes, but it seems wholly irrelevant to me, because fan theories are about exploring and negotiating the parameters of a fictional universe. If Rowling were to assert that the theory can't be true because of X, Y, and Z examples from canon, that might interest me, but only insofar as those claim would interest me if articulated by anyone. Because navigating the myriad of given and open-ended truths of a fictional universe is what fan theory is. The whole point is to take some measure of intellectual ownership over a sort of thought experiment playground. So authorial intent is great, but mostly irrelevant. In engaging with a Harry Potter fan theory, I am really only interested what Rowling has written in the seven published novels -- less so with what she's posted on Twitter.

"Authorial intent", or *Word of God* as it's often known in ... well, any conversation about it I've personally ever had, absolutely has to be the pinnacle of canon when it comes to that creator's works. Not only with books and such things created solely by the one party, but even shows, movies and such where the writers or directors have something to say about a theory or expanded canon idea or whatever (so long as two people involved, in such a situation, don't disagree with one another, then I'd say it's a whole different story). Basically, if we, as fans, believe *anything* about the work in question from an in-universe standpoint, then who are we to argue with further information from the very mind that created that work? If you don't believe Rowling saying Ron =/= Dumbledore or that Dumbledore is gay or anything else to that effect, then it seems very odd that you would even believe any other fact or occurrence from the books at all such that you could even form such a theory to begin with. If this one thing Rowling said about the canon isn't true, then who's to say Hogwarts even exists? Who's to say magic as we know it in-universe isn't some kind of weird massive collective hallucination between a bunch of "particularly gifted individuals"? Who's to say Harry isn't actually a 48-year-old Icelandic woman having dreams that she's a young male wizard? Of course, crackpot theories like that and much weirder are certainly free for anyone to come up with and share and have fun with if they'd like to, but basically if you don't believe the author's direct word on any given topic about the canon then why do you believe any of the canon to begin with?

I think the interplay between fan theories and authorial intent is often interesting. Similar to this is the Blade Runner "Replicant Theory," which states that Harrison Ford's character Deckard was in fact a replicant himself. Ridley Scott said that he intended for Deckard's identity as a replicant to be heavily implied, but Harrison Ford said that he was definitely human. It was also revealed that early drafts of the script originally ended with Deckard discovering that he was a replicant, but those endings were deemed too complex for audiences and were edited out. Also, this strays far from the original work (Phillip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"), in which Deckard is almost definitely human, and the movie does not stray too far from the source material in any other [major] way.

On the subject of explaining magic with magic, that reminds me of Sanderson's First Law: "An author's ability to solve conflict satisfactorily with magic is directly proportional to how well the reader understands said magic."

it upsets me when people act like Ron is dumb & had to rely completely on Harry & Hermione, truth is only Hermione was actually brilliant Harry is only slightly better than Ron when it comes to school & Ron was a lot smarter than we actually get to see because he is so unsure of himself & disinterested in schoolwork

Ron the most lovable ginger? Bah! He's the least lovable of all the Weasleys.

As a writer myself, I go much further than many of my colleagues on authorship. I don't believe that there is any gravitas to an author's position on particular readings of a book. Once the work of fiction is complete, the author becomes merely another reader, and the story takes on a life of its own. I've had readers interpret my stories in ways that I never intended, but they were profound in a way that I would never have imagined. Allowing fiction to progress in that way makes it possible for a piece of fiction to become greater than it's author, which is amazing and beautiful.

John Green also has a good quote on the topic: "Books belong to their readers."

All fictional narratives are equally valid, as they are equally fictional. There is no point in looking for some corporeal truth in something which is not corporeal. Thus all fan theories are equally valid. Even equal to the original work, itself, or any beliefs which the original author has concerning them. This, OF COURSE, does not address the very real world subjects of Copyright, Intellectual Property, and Plagiarism. Those are a very different subject, entirely. People seek, in general, authorial validation for the same reasons that people ever seek validation. We are hard wired to want validation and support.

+1 for Primer reference, also if you did primer in a video, I would be just so thrilled.

Part of Fan theories is that authors tend to write things that can be subliminally explained by plots they wrote, even if they believe they have other reasons. Take the Dursleys for example. Rowling has said on record she hates them, and more specifically Lilly, but to be honest I have a hard time believing Lily would abuse her nephew if she loved her sister. I believe the theory that Harry being a Horcrux left the Dursleys defenseless and overly aggressive and angry toward Harry. Plus Harry is a character that Rowling loves, so she will take his side in hating them. As for Ron being Dumbledore, I believe Dumbledore sees a lot of himself in Ron. Harry Potter can be pretty dense sometimes, and doesn't notice things he should. Ron on the other hand tended to be slightly more intuitive when something actually caught his interest. He wasn't book smart, but definitely more practical.

One interesting example of this comes from the first run of Lego's BIONICLE toy line, but sort of the inverse of the Rowling example in the episode, with a fan suggesting something and the author replying, "Sure, why not?" Short background: BIONICLE featured several teams of heroes called Toa, each sporting different elemental powers and wearing Masks that granted them other minor powers, while fighting various evil creatures and searching for ways to revive their dead deity, Mata Nui. A previously unnamed team of heroes, with mostly unnamed members, was used to explain a bizarre similarity in names. A volcano that housed the fire village and the Big Bad's lair were called Mangai and Mangaia, respectively. A fan had the idea that the aforementioned team be called the Toa Mangai, Mangai meaning protector, with the volcano being named after them. Mangaia would then be an archaic version of the same word, the lair being named that before the Big Bad's Face-Heel Turn. This in turn led to many of the main island's locations being retconned into the names of fallen friends of the village leaders. Another example would be a group of villains called the Piraka used turrets called Nektann, and when another member of their race showed up in a story, a fan suggested "Hey, maybe the turrets were named after him?" The writer was like, "Okay", and wrote the newly-christened Nektann into a web story to make it official. A couple years later, it was promoted to the toyline when Lego made a new Piraka toy that didn't match any of the existing characters, so it was decided that it would be Nektann.

if the author doesnt have final say on what is true then no one should

As much as fan theories are interesting...fancy tackling something a bit bigger?

3:12 Where is the source?

Ronbledore?

In regards to authorial power, I think it tends to be disregarded that authors create the worlds in which they write, and that as one of the best world-builders in fantasy, I think Jo should be allowed to say no to the more ridiculous fan theories like this one

Ron being Dumbledore would create a time loop

Dumbledore hates pussy though

are we ever gonna get get ideas instead of fan theories ever again?

It feels like disrespect, making a theory about a story, or world, and then disregarding an author's comment. It's their world, they are the sole arbiter of what is correct in their world, that's why THEY wrote it. Of course that all changes with stories written by multiple people, but that's a different story all together.

Does this theory even simple graze the realm of possibility. I would say not, in truth it goes leagues beyond just a possibility. I have found through my doctorate degree in Potterology from the Vanlooten institute at Munster, is that this is no theory, but the only logical way to understand the happenings of Harry Potter. If you disagree then you are a fake fan, and not a very educated one at that. I give Rowling's moronic comments no credence here, as she clearly has no idea what she is talking about, the way she that she does not acknowledge the FACT the Ron is Dumbledore proves what I have long suspected through my studies: that she has in fact never read any books in the Harry Potter series. So why any of us still listen to her is well beyond me.

Explaining how Dumbledore seems to know about everything before hand: He lives his life normally, finds out something that would be useful for him to know in advance, uses a Time-Turner to deliver a note to his past self.

Hey! I know this has nothing to do with the content of the video, but could you publish the episode transcriptions? As much as I like the vlogging format, sometimes things slip through the cracks of my ability to concentrate on either the script or the accompanying images and GIFs. Or just to be able to give the ideas themselves a deeper, more comprehensive thought.

Basically, we have three types of canon for a story: Official canon, fanon, and headcanon. Official canon consists of the official works, combined with the amendments, additions, and modifications of the author's word. Headcanon is a personal interpretation of the story which mostly conforms to the official canon but has amendments, additions, and modifications from that reader/watcher/player which can go above and beyond, and even conflict with, the official canon. Fanon is a collective headcanon, where many fans, either through communication or on their own, reach the same interpretation that goes above and beyond, or even conflicts with, the official canon. Some people worship the official canon so much that they cannot enjoy a fan hypothesis (I refuse to misuse the word theory like that) unless it is, or they at least believe it to be, official canon. Those of us who are more comfortable playing around with fanon and headcanon do not strive for the author's grace.

As far as theories go, I like to consider myself the author at that point, so "because I say so" is basically how the original author made their universe work in the first place.

An audience member can love a song for misheard lyrics. The re-interpretation is still their relationship to the "art", regardless of authorial intent labelling it a "mis-interpretation". But the re-interpretation doesn't mean that the audience member wrote the source either. Nor does that make the artwork communal property and the "artist is dead" by proxy.

Anybody that says that fan theories hold more weight than the author has an ego problem. It's basically saying that, "I know better of the author's works than the author himself." Pure egotism.

One more thought. I think it's important to make a distinction between fan theories, and headcanon. Theories are indeed concerned with being "true", whereas headcanon isn't. Whether a piece of headcanon is "true" or not can influence whether you choose to adopt it as your own, it isn't necessary for a headcanon to be canonically true or not in order for you to adopt it as your own.

I think it's important to note that the HP world gives an example of how time travel works in that time is 100% pre-determined. It contains events where future selves cause past selves to take certain actions. Meaning you are (to borrow QM terminology) temporally-entangled with your future decision - there is no state where you traveled back in time and not end up exactly where you are when you are deciding to go back in time. Paradoxes simply don't exist. Therefore, if Ron were to travel back in time to become Dumbledore, he would have complete knowledge of what he will do (at least in certain events) and has no way of stopping it because by deciding to travel back in time he has locked thing in place - essentially creating (to borrow DW terminology) fixed points in time. It would explain how and why Dumbledore is basically a deity in the HP world. Now as for authorial intent and it's place in fan theories, I personally think it is good for the overall environment of fan theories when an author confirms, denies, or conspicuously does not comment on some theory. I would argue that canon plot is the foundation that all fan theories are built on (whether ignoring it or not is up to one's preference). One of the fun aspects of fan theory is coming up with ideas that fit the canon. When an author rejects a fan theory that based on everything up to that point fits canon, that means you now have new canon for new theories to be based on. Sure the theory now moves on to the non-canon world, but by being wrong it gives more information.

I think the big key of authorial intent is that any producer of art, whether the original creator or a later interpreter, can only present us with their specific vision of that work of art. We as the audience then form our own vision of that work of art as we observe it, and it's up to us to decide whether or not our vision will align with that of the author. When we create and share fan theories, we're merely expressing our vision of the work of art just as the previous author did before us, and the people we're sharing them with then have the exact same choice we did of deciding whether or not their vision of that work of art aligns with the one we have created. This includes the original creator him/herself, who can then either choose to amend their own vision to include ours or instead reject it. While statistically more people are going to align their visions of the work with that of the original author than with anyone else, that number is in fact determined by who the author is and how much respect the audience has for said author; regardless, the number of people believing in our own fan theories or not is only important insofar as how much of an influence that peer pressure has on whether or not we decide to maintain our own vision of the work in question.

i've discovered this channel last night, and it is now my favorite. i love how it gets my brain thinking and opening my mind to new ideas. thank you thus far.

I feel like Tolkien's quote fits in here when talking about "author magic" “I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

I just want to know how many times Mike said, "Don is Rumbledore" in the out takes.

An author is a gardener. They plant seeds that germinate. They cultivate and nurture. They prune. They graft. Once the stories reach maturity, author gardeners sell their plants to readers who take them home and plant them in their own gardens. This metaphor starts well but fails spectacularly at this point... because the plant the reader receives isn't always the exact one the author grew. The author (or copyright holder and keeper of canon) can make reader grafts grow or wither. The reader an grow fruit only they (or a few) can see and enjoy. Are Ron and Dumbledore the same? That wasn't on the plant we received, but grow it in your garden and enjoy!

I remember one of my professors emphasising the point that art requires an audience. If the author had a clear, singular message that they didn't want mis-interpretted, they shouldn't have written a novel.

You know man, Ron being Dumbledore pushes the limit of HP fan theory. Those two differs in their personality sooo much.

I think it makes a difference if the work is still in progress, Its fair for Authors to comment on theories about their work if it is still in progress. It keeps the fans involved and lets them know the author is listing.

I might have never have given this theory a second thought until I saw Interstellar. Now, I not only think that Ron is Dumbledore ( who's name literally means 'I am Ron' backwards) but that Dumbledore is also Matthew McConaughey! And that all three are actually the Big Bang!

If the time line updates constantly and automatically then Dumbledore would both be learning of altered events as they happen but also have a lifetime to prepare for them. Ron who goes on to become Dumbledore will remember everything that has happened up until he goes back by the time he goes back and so as Dumbledore's influence changes events he will actively have the whole time between his Ron presence and his Dumbledore presence to prepare to encounter those changes as Dumbledore. This means that Ron gets to spend however much time between his Ron state and Dumbledore state as there is between them, thinking and planning in preparation for how his Dumbledore state would best react to these changes. It's like quantum computing because he can react almost instantly while also spending a vast amount of virtual time pondering.

Authorial intent gets shelved in the realm of Fanfiction, which is where fan theories are able to fourish best, because the new author is now the author, and they are the one theorizing a what-if scenario, in a version of that world where they can build the groundwork to make the theory work.

What if old Ron used the time tuner, but instead of sending him as a whole, the turner scattered old Ron into pieces, into other people in his past. His memories and some personality quarks to Dumbledore, "luck" to his younger self, love to Herminie, etc. Like the Terminator effect, it had to happen for the story to function, so there is never a time when Ron didn't travel back in time.

I want a magic themed wrestler called Rumbledore

omg that ProJared gif... I lost it

I remember reading years ago fanfiction where Harry was actually Dumbledore - kind of. If memory serves, he traveled backwards to before Riddle's youth, real Dumbledore died of stroke, and he took his place (using magic to make himself look like the old bumblebee), couldn't kill or change anything in the past on the off chance he wouldn't be born (butterfly effect?) and wrote a whole bunch of diaries so the present day (???) Harry would know when to travel into the past (infinite loop?). It made total sense to the teenage me, haha!

This theory would explain why Dumbledore left Ron the magic Delluminator that leads him back to his friends, because it implies that Dumbledore remembers how rash and stubborn he was when he was younger, and so had to provide a safeguard for when his younger self would eventually abandon the cause.

I think the wonderful part of fan theories is that it doesn't matter if they are perfectly cannon. People are still going to believe whatever theories they want to. And I feel like it's a branching of a million different paths. Some people see Dumbledore and Ron as the same person. Some don't. Some see Dumbledore as Death. Some don't. Every single person has a different interaction with the cannon and it gives fans a reason to go out and see if other people had the same experience as they did. I hate when creators deny theories because it kills a part of the universe that existed for the people who believed the theory. I feel that once you let your story into the world you have to allow your fans to take it in whatever way they see it. I also find on going fan theories really interesting. So theories that seek to explain what WILL happen in an ongoing series. It's fun to see if you can piece together foreshadowing and clues given by creators. This is especially true for shows like Gravity Falls where there are hidden bits of clue hidden around every corner. Also all the time travel bits hurt my brain...

Nitpick to the rant: What would ever make us think that there's only one time turner? If they're handing them out like candy to students, I assume it's probably a pretty common artifact.

I don't know anything about the fan-theorist community but the fan-fiction community doesn't worry too much about cannon. Cannon is nice to know, sometimes even if it means we're better prepared to write something exactly opposite cannon. Sometimes things become cannon after we write a fiction, in my particular flavor of fan-fiction that became known as "being jossed" referring to Joss Whedon (Buffy/Angel/Firefly/Dollhouse) universe. It's always assumed that 'being jossed' meant great minds think alike and not that authors are skimming fan-fiction looking for the next big twist. In any case fan-fictions are like playing with action figures, it's our playtime with our toys (even if we didn't design them or manufacture them or get paid to create them) ...at that point author input isn't needed in our sandbox, but is sometimes fun to know how close we came to cannon years ahead of the reveal. My guess is that fan-theorists are driven a little more towards the competitive side of being jossed... and perhaps hope that their ideas might become fannon. At that point author input is actually a problem.

The main problem I see with this theory right away, before any later revelations, is the existence of Aberforth. That we actually meet said brother long before his identity is confirmed-and I admit, I guessed who the innkeeper was waaaay before the books said it outright-only puts more nails in the coffin. That said, clever idea.

The fan theories have been some of you best videos. Please do bring these back on occasion.

When considering the role of the "Word of God" in discussing fan theories, I tend to regard comments by the author as secondary canon, falling into the same category of expanded universe works like Star Wars novelizations or Doctor Who radio plays. Such works may add extra insights to the core materials but may not be held to the same level of authority as the source material, and therefore can be set aside in theory crafting, especially where such material conflicts with or has little basis in established canon.

Can we just get a theory channel?

as an occasional contributor and long time listener of "The Bible Geek," authors intent is of paramount interest, but how people actually interpret the text is also of paramount interest. Intent is to Interpretation as history is to theology.

Dumbledore asking Harry if he's hooking up with Hermione is all the Ron = Dumbledore convincing I need.

So arguably one of the greatest authors of our time acknowledges that she doesn't have much weight in how readers pronounce her character's name but some engineer can rewrite the rules of English with "gif?"

One thing that I noticed is that at the end of The Deathly Hallows when Harry was going to destroy the elder wand Ron said that they shouldn’t in a way so then when he became Dumbledoor he went back in time and acquired the elder wand i.e. he wanted it then went back in time and acquired it.

It is most definitely possible that Ron is Dumbledore. It is also a very real possibility that J.K. Rowling simply doesn't realize it. Though it may seem an odd place to draw inspiration, this topic reminded me of a fascinating scene from the TV show Supernatural featuring the villain, Metatron. For anyone who doesn't know: Metatron, the scribe of heaven, attempts to usurp God and manipulates the show's protagonists for his own ends. He often refers to himself as a writer and draws analogies between writing and Godhood. One of his henchmen is captured by the protagonists and later asks Metatron if that was also "part of his plan." Metatron responds, "That was a surprise. But, hey, what writer doesn't love a good twist? My job is to set up interesting characters and see where they lead me. The by-product of having well-drawn characters is...They may surprise you." Readers often think that authors have an omniscent understanding of their created universe and all of its characters but this is simply impossible. An author cannot know everything about even one of their own characters for the same reason you couldn't know everything about about your parents, spouse, children or anyone else for that matter: there's simply too much to know, too much of that life which you yourself have not experienced. Instead, writers have to make assumptions about their characters. They make assumptions about their personalities and how they'll react to scenarios they're faced with. They make assumptions about their backstories and even more assumptions about their futures. Writers have to do this or books could never be written. There is an unfathomable amount of space in a character's life that is never experienced and no one, writer or reader, could ever explore it all. Because a writer is always making assumptions, they can occassionally get things wrong. This is why authors are often suprised or frustrated by plausible fan theories. A fan could propose an explanation that fits perfectly with what is known about the characters and fictional universe but because it doesn't align with the author's assumptions, it's categorically rejected as false. It would probably be more accurate to label such situations as improbable, the same way it's improbable that your spouse is a werewolf because you spend so much time together and you would have noticed the claw marks everywhere and why wouldn't she just tell me because she knows I would totally understand and still love her?

I feel that since Rowling invented the universe we enter when reading [or watching] Harry Potter, she has the ultimate say on her intent for the information she included. Intent being whether or not she meant something to be interpreted a certain way. That being said, that is distinctly different from flat out saying it can't be interpreted that way. All Rowling said in regard to the Fan Theory was that it was a "false theory". She did not say that it isn't a "good" way of viewing her creation.

'Ride coherent on the Fan-Theory Road.' Perfect.

I like when authors or creators dont shoot down theories and instead just go thats interesting or maybe gives fans the room they want to talk about future events or theories

A fan theory is only a fan theory for as long as it's not canon. The moment it's canon it is no longer a fan theory, but if an author says that it's not canon specifically then it still maintains it's existence as a fan theory because fan theories exist as non-canon explanation of what could be, even if it isn't in the end.

Having only seen the movies, I naturally only know nothing of the story of Harry Potter, but as I am to understand him , Ron is a bit clumsy. So say he found the time turner, but he accidentally broke it (He dropped it while picking it up; he stepped on it; the point is, the thing is broken.) and in an act of desperation to try to fix it, he was sent far into the past. At some point, he finds a way to fix it after having done a better job at mastering magic and living this new life as Dumbledore, but he decides not to go back because too much time has passed, he doesn't feel the need to use any sort of reverse aging spell; he just wants to be there and exist because he's content. Rather than step too much in the way of the events he remembers, he just lets things happen so as to not ruin everyone's fun and misfortunes as they shape who they will be, but he does know when to step in and have the master plans take place for the destruction of Voldemort. He becomes a paradox while everyone just does what they do. I don't feel like I've trapped myself. Ron/Dumbledore is a paradoxical being, a troll when he wants to be, and a guide when he feels he must. I've never heard of this theory and not being a huge fan of Harry Potter may mean I did this wrong, but I don't feel like I'm using any "because I said so" tactics. I think I'm just trying to find the easiest, and most believable way for this theory to even stand. It was never an intentional act until he decided to stay at the point in time he was at because he liked it; maybe he just wants to relive "the glory days" from a different perspective. I don't really think it matters. I should just let it be all-those-who-care-more-than-I's problem.

Considering how many fan theories openly ignore contradictory details from the source material, you could assume that they have already removed the author as the authority, and instead put themself in that position for the piece in a similar way to fan fiction (but not to the same extreme).

Ron and Dumbledore both have families and back stories that conflict with each other. I don't see how you can get around that, unless Ron a) transports himself back in time as an adult and either implants himself in the memories of thousands of people or replaces the real Dumbledore, by that time already an amazing wizard, or b) Ron goes back in time as an adult and makes himself look like an eleven year old or less Dumbledore. That actually would explain his wisdom and magical ability if he's already trained to be an aurar on his (Dumbledore's) first day of Hogwarts, but it does require us to believe that during the books he's at least 27 years older than he looks when he dies. Now that I think about it, that would reconcile Rowling's extra textual remarks that he's both 150 and was born in 1881, but those are extra textual and clearly pulled out of nowhere, so they're non cannon anyway.

In Prisoner of Azkaban after Harry falls while playing quiditch, as he is waking up one of the twins says "lets throw you off the Astronemy tower Ron, and see what you look like". We all know Rowling loves to foreshadow

When the writer said a fan theory is not true, well then you have a very interesting case of the "autority fallacy".

I think authorial intent does matter to a point just because the author is the one who created the universe and introduced it to us. It is their mind that set up the rules for the thing that we enjoy and it's those rules and that framework from which all of us fans understand the world and have an equal way of communicating with each other about the world of Harry Potter. We all speak the same wizarding language, so to speak, because we all reference one original source. It'd be utter chaos if every fan's pet theory was equally valid as the author's because we'd never be able to agree on what the HP universe is. We need one common ground and one foundation and that's the author's words and intent even after the last publish if they still want to offer more insight into the universe they created. Author intent is a form of standardization. Like just going with Harry Potter since that is the subject from which we arrive at this question, we all know that there's certain things about the series like that there are four Hogwarts Houses and each student gets sorted into one of the four by the Sorting Hat even if it takes hours of arguing with the Hat about which House. We all know that YOU DO GET PUT INTO ONE OF THEM. If one fan decides to make an original character that adamantly refuses to be in any of the existing Houses and makes their own, that's their original story and it's a fun idea to play with. But we all understand it's not part of the rules and conventions that Rowling wrote or set up or something that she would agree to and I think it's important. It would also cause utter confusion with trying to talk to other HP fans around the world because you're introducing something that's NOT PART of the canonical universe as anyone else knows it. This isn't to say that each fan's experience of Harry Potter isn't valid though. Everyone experiences the story in a different way, but we communicate what that experience means to us through the framework that the author created so that we can understand each other and share something. The author's word is law in that it is the rules that we all play by and understand by. I know some people got a bit upset about Rowling introducing other kinds of details that weren't originally in the book after publish, but at the same time those details to her probably were never separate from the original version and she's even admitted herself that there were times that she told little tidbits to fans that were never in the books to people at meet and greets and I believe that because I'm a writer that is imagining up my own world as well for a book I'm planning, have started, and am not done with yet. It's tough to explain, but you have every detail in your head about how everything works and key events you want to get to, but you have to fill in the development and everything else in the middle. It's just that explaining every single thing doesn't necessarily translate into good prose into the books or maybe you forget to put something in because you're on a creative roll with how a scene is playing out on paper. When there's so much in your head, it's really easy for one little tidbit of information to be missed that to you was always there or that you always understood, but a reader who is picking it up fresh has no idea about. You live, breathe, and know that world because your mind is the one that created it and it's just when it's so expansive it's hard to remember to describe every detail to tell someone else. It's like you understand things in a certain way and it's so clear to you, but you don't necessarily remember exactly what you wrote. Not to mention that some parts probably ended up being cut out or something in the editing process, but maybe she forgot it didn't make it to the final version. To me, having Rowling explain more of her universe to us is invaluable because her mind is a well of fantastical information. Rather than being critical of her for spoiling our fan head canon dreams, I feel like we should appreciate that we have access to her and the ability to indulge more in her wonderful universe. After she's gone, we won't have that kind of access anymore and even if other people try to do things in her style, it won't necessarily be or feel the same way if someone else picks up the mantle to try to "officially" expand the HP universe. I mean, Star Trek is a great example of this because we lost Gene Rodenberry and then that universe kept going with newer additions to the franchise. It's not that those additions to the franchise weren't loved in themselves, but a lot of the later ones were definitely lacking in some spirit of the ones that Rodenberry personally touched because it's someone imitating his style and not him himself. Loyal fans questioned a lot about execution and diversity and the continuation of the message and those were valid complaints, but they exist because it's an interpretation of the original message and not directly from the source. The source itself cannot be perfectly replicated because everyone else is different.

Except for two things: 1) We know a good deal about Dumbledore's early years, which would have overlapped with Ron in age, so unless Ron goes back in time and alters the memories of many people (frequently for the worse) and fabricates evidence of his youth, they can't coexist in a single timeline. 2) Ron is incredibly close to all his family, he is the last character that might willingly abandon his family for the rest of time knowing he'd never be able to be as close to them as he was.

The paradox is that the author of a story creates their own universe, yet can only reveal so much through the perspective it is told from. This leaves the question: do the readers have the authority to finish the story. This is still about perspective. No two individuals will ever have the same experiences in our lives, and we all have our own opinions and beliefs. To someone, if what the believe works in their own mind and they disregard facts because they do not believe they are true (due to religion, past experiences, prior knowledge, etc.) then they are correct. This is because we as humans know so little about the universe, and since we can never fully comprehend everything and there is always a degree of uncertainty then we can never prove anyone wrong. However, a story is not in our universe, it is in a world created by one author. They know everything, they have the final authority. I recorded a video about this, should post it sometime.

If Ron were Dumbledore he couldn't change the experiences that he found personally traumatizing because it would have lessened his motive to invent long term time travel. This is covered in the book The Time Machine and explored very well IMO in the anime STEINS;GATE.

If you go by Unicode's specs about how to store text into computers, emojis are glyphs/letters, so maybe they can be considered single-letter words?