posted
I am waiting to see what the lord and master has to say about my other favorite author,JKR, revealing Dumbledore's sexual preference.Both write fantasy involving young people(I won't say FOR young people because I don't believe it is).Both put a great deal of their own values into their own works.A common thread for me is also the extent to which I fully admire their own personal behavior. I would be hard pressed to think of two other people I admire without reservation.
What will OSC say?
Posts: 39 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've only read the first book of the Alvin Maker series, so I could be wrong, but doesn't Alvin turn out to be gay?
Posts: 104 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting she makes this information known AFTER all the books have been written. If this was such an important aspect of his life why not write about it? If it doesnt matter why come out now? Either way im suspect of her motives. . .
Posts: 201 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt he'll have anything much to say about it. Most people I know are of the "and we care why?" philosophy.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
He might have an opinion on the responsibility of an author to be truthful and consistent within the world that they have created. I could see him having a beef similar to what Dagonee has said, about it weakening the moral relevancy of his flirtation with the dark side.
Though I guess I can see one other piece of the puzzle, which is if his trusting Snape was rooted in his own turnabout. But again, if she didn't give us that in the books, so what?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with a recent essay in Time that even if accept Dumbledore's gayness as canonical, what gay person would want him that way? He never comes out to anyone and his closest friends are teenage boys!
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JKRowling didn't say it in the books because she wanted to make it as shocking as possible.
And I don't think OSC will really care all that much about it.
What'll happen now, though, is a bunch of fantasy writers'll start writing 'token gay' characters--but what will it really accomplish? I seriously doubt anyone will honestly change his or her opinion on gay marriage because they found out Dumbledore or any other character in fiction is gay.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What'll happen now, though, is a bunch of fantasy writers'll start writing 'token gay' characters
Do you really think so? Why? It's worth noting that many spec-fic writers have already thrown in a fair number of "token gay" characters. Do you think they were an influence on Rowling?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by soccer-head: JKRowling didn't say it in the books because she wanted to make it as shocking as possible.
I think she did not mention it in the book or earlier because she did not want to influence books sales, can you imagine all the book burnings if she admitted that he was gay years ago? Smart move. JK, waiting to way after the final book release... so hypocritical...
Posts: 40 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Razputin: I think she did not mention it in the book or earlier because she did not want to influence books sales, can you imagine all the book burnings if she admitted that he was gay years ago?
I can't quite decide whether you're arguing that controversy drives down book sales, or that Rowling was trying to make sure that fewer of her books sold.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only thing that saddens me is that this might impact the ability of some to enjoy the books.
She "revealed" the information in the least deliberate way possible. It's not a significant part of the story. It only influences one tiny plot point, which would work even without this information.
Leaving out the question of real-world beliefs, I respect the right of an author to write their own story. There are layers to a story beyond what's printed in a book.
That said, I'm sympathetic to the point of view that revealing the information in the story would have impacted the series more significantly, in controversy if not in book sales. She handled it well. If the kid hadn't asked the question we might have never known.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Noemon, does controversy drive sales of children's books? I'm asking seriously ... I could see the genre functioning as an exception to the rule, at least in some cases.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure, Geoff, but while the Harry Potter books may be written for children (and by the end of the series I'd say that that's continuing to be the case is debatable), their actual audience is much, much broader.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by soccer-head: What'll happen now, though, is a bunch of fantasy writers'll start writing 'token gay' characters--but what will it really accomplish?
Why? Because Dumbledore's sexuality played such a crucial role in the success of the series? </irony>
My understanding is that the only reason it came up at all is one of the movies was going to have mention of a prior relationship of Dumbledore's with a girl, and Rowling felt the need to correct that from her own private knowledge of the characters and their motivations.
She's admitted a certain amusement at the notion that this revelation might aggravate a small extremist religious base, but mostly because those are the same people who were aggravated that the books "promoted witchcraft". Beyond that amusement and a devotion to fidelity in her vision of her characters, I really don't see any huge "agenda" here.
I doubt Card will care one way or another. I don't doubt he knows more about many of his own characters than is obvious on the page.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why? Because Dumbledore's sexuality played such a crucial role in the success of the series? </irony>
No. Because JK Rowling's announcement was met with 'prolonged applause' and praise, as well as more attention towards the books and movies. I sure don't doubt the ability of fantasy writers to grab on to every chance of easy fame.
quote: Do you really think so? Why? It's worth noting that many spec-fic writers have already thrown in a fair number of "token gay" characters. Do you think they were an influence on Rowling?
Admittedly, I haven't read enough s-f to have a real answer for this, but I wouldn't say so. I don't even think Rowling meant to have a 'token gay' character, but just to make a statement.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only way this makes a difference is if you think that gay people do nothing more than walk around all day long doing things to say in some way, "Look at me, I'm gay."
Unless you're friends with someone outside of work and they confide in you, or they have pictures of family in their office (which even then is questionable) there is no way of knowing if someone is gay or straight simply by being around them.
Dumbledore was gay. How would his not being gay have affected how he interacted with Harry and the others. It wouldn't have. Rowling could just as easily have said the Dumbledore was an alien learning about the planet. It wouldn't only matter if that aspect of the character affected others in the story.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
She knew all along that being gay was part of the character she created. She probably never would have said anything about it had someone not asked her directly about Dumbledore's love life. Once asked, she answered. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about. I mean, the person who asked it was specifically asking about part of Dumbledore's life that didn't show up in the book. Had she said, "Yes, Dumbledore had a romance at one point", would the complainers be complaining the way they are now? I doubt it. Their objection has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the book and everything to do with thinking "gay = icky".
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: She knew all along that being gay was part of the character she created. She probably never would have said anything about it had someone not asked her directly about Dumbledore's love life. Once asked, she answered. I honestly don't get what the fuss is about. I mean, the person who asked it was specifically asking about part of Dumbledore's life that didn't show up in the book. Had she said, "Yes, Dumbledore had a romance at one point", would the complainers be complaining the way they are now? I doubt it. Their objection has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the book and everything to do with thinking "gay = icky".
So true... She's always known he was gay from the very beginning of creating him. Well, not exactly.. it takes some time to shape a character.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I could see him having a beef similar to what Dagonee has said, about it weakening the moral relevancy of his flirtation with the dark side.
To clarify just a little, my concern was not that Dumbledore being gay weakened the moral relevancy of the dark side flirtation, but that telling the Grindelwald story with Dumbledore's unrequited love for him would weaken the story.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dunno, I just always think of hobbits as sort of asexual. For that matter, I have a hard time thinking of any of Tolkien's characters as having sex lives.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I heard what she said about Dumbledore she ruined all the books for me and she destroyed his name, I believe that she never should have said his sexual preference because he died anyway
I believe that she is using this as a ploy to get more publication about the books and possibly get more readers.
OSC is right about not expressing his opinion on this matter because there is a possibility that it might ruin his name by something he says
Posts: 14 | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the stances he's taken on homosexuality in the past, I seriously doubt that if he had something to say he'd refrain.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by James Schindler: I believe that she is using this as a ploy to get more publication about the books and possibly get more readers.
No. It only came up at all with regard to elements in a script for one of the movies that needed to be changed to be accurate to the author's vision. If this was about publicity, it would more likely have been brought up elsewhere, and earlier.
The woman is literally richer than the Queen of England. If the next two movies fail, she'll still be fine. It's rather hard to imagine that she stirred this particular hornets' nest. At least, intentionally.
quote:OSC is right about not expressing his opinion on this matter because there is a possibility that it might ruin his name by something he says [/QB]
If Card ever "ruins his name" about anything, I doubt it will be a matter this trivial.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, step away for a week and I lose my chance to defend my comments... OK, a tad late but anyhow...
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: In what way is it hypocritical?
I'm having a hard time seeing why it's even pertinent.
I feel it is deceptive in that she revealed his sexual preference after the books were all published. If it was important enough to mention now, why not earlier?
As for its pertinence, it isn't, this character's sexual preference had no role in the story so should never have been mentioned. He is asexual...
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: [QB]I can't quite decide whether you're arguing that controversy drives down book sales, or that Rowling was trying to make sure that fewer of her books sold.
I am just arguing that she should have revealed his preference earlier but didn't IMO simply to avoid controversy and potential loss of sales.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel it is deceptive in that she revealed his sexual preference after the books were all published.
It's not deceptive. You yourself said that the character's sexuality wasn't a question; that it wasn't even pertinent. For her to have been deceptive, an expectation would have to have been set.
This wasn't hypocrisy; nor was it deception. This was an author revealing something about a character that no one knew, or expected, that had no bearing on the books at all.
I can't really say why his homosexuality wasn't revealed earlier; but I don't recall there ever being a chance for it. Or a need for it. When the question about his relationships came up, she answered it-- that question did not arise in the books.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no way she could have revealed this information without objection. If she had included it in the book, given how wildly unimportant it was, people would have cried foul that she was pushing an agenda on children. Saying it after the fact gives rise to the complaints we've all heard recently.
The only way out was either to make him straight, or to never tell anyone.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: I can't quite decide whether you're arguing that controversy drives down book sales, or that Rowling was trying to make sure that fewer of her books sold.
I am just arguing that she should have revealed his preference earlier but didn't IMO simply to avoid controversy and potential loss of sales.
If you're making that argument, you're starting from the assumption that controversy causes book sales to decrease. You're mistaken in thinking that this is the case.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |