Now, let me first emphasize that I have no problem with homosexuals, or gay characters in books for that matter. That is not what this is about for me. (Although, some people really will have a problem with it.)For me, this is about Rowling releasing a HUGE piece of information after the series has been written, that, to me, doesn't seem to be what she always had in mind when she wrote them. I looked back through the books and I just didn't see the any clues or subtle indications of him being gay. I mean, yes, Dumbledore was a single, old guy who had never married, but that's not enough for me. There should have been several fairly specific clues laid down for the reader from book one.

But, suppose Rowling did truly see Dumbledore as gay from the very beginning, that begs the question of why didn't she have Harry/the reader discover this in one of the books? Is this normal for authors to reveal a large element of a major character after the series has ended?

I guess I just feel a bit unsettled either way. On the one hand, I don't like the idea of a author revealing a big detail after the fact. But, even worse would be if she hadn't really written it that way at first, and is now saying it for shock value, or an attempt to be PC, or who knows why. What do you think?

 

My Dumbledore isn't gay. But of course my Harry Potter should have hooked up with my Luna Lovegood. The author certainly has the right to comment on her own work, but after the fact it is just another commentary. She gets to decide what she meant but she does not get to decide what it means to me.
 

I recall a book (I think I read it, but I might've just read the reviews), that discussed which characters in Hollywood movies were gay, or that the audience were intended to think were gay (back in the bad old days where it couldn't be said aloud), and how these characters and their sexual orientation enhanced various movies and storylines. The one I chiefly remember is Captain Reynaud (Claude Rains) from "Casablanca," and his relationship with Rick (Humphrey Bogart), and where it spills into the plot and dialog. There are certainly others in Hollywood history.

(I'm always at a loss over Harry Potter. I've only read Book One---I can't say anything there made me think that Dumbledore was gay---he seemed a typical (or stereotypical) elderly British schoolmaster, although one with a deep background that (I presume) came out further in the later books.)
 

After reading the news piece, I can say that the description and tone of his relationship with Gindelwald had a "sacharrine" quality to it, that made me think of love unfulfilled, so on some level I am not really surprised.

However the series was already high on the bigot hit list because it was "satanic" (pronounced with a thick southern accent) Dumbledore being a poof just gives them another reason to pan/ban the series. Which is a shame.

 

What is the point of announcing this now? It's not germane to the story in any way? Doesn't she get enough press? I agree with the previous poster--if he's gay, write him in as a gay character. Otherwise, what does it matter?

Or did an editor remove that part of the storyline? I know she's said she wrote detailed character descriptions before she dove into the books, but is seems so...arbitrary now.

[This message has been edited by JamieFord (edited October 20, 2007).]
 

And to pre-answer a question, she only 'released' this information in response to a question posed by a reader at a Q&A session. It wasn't a publicity stunt (seriously... you think she needs the publicity?) or a political statement. As a matter of fact, she seemed kind of surprised at the reaction.
 

I don't think it is necessary to say "oh yeah, this character is gay". Present characters as how they are.

Also, there are plenty of situations where the author had more depth to his/her world but couldn't fit it into the books. Think of Discworld, Ringworld and Middle Earth.

quote:

---

There should have been several fairly specific clues laid down for the reader from book one.

---

WHAT in god's name did it have to do with anything? Any writer of a substantial fantasy will have tons and I mean TONS of backstory on all their important characters and their fantasy world that will never make it into the books. Unless it had to do with the plot--which it didn't--there was absolutely NO reason this should have been put in.

The last thing Rowling needs is a tiny bit of extra publicity. She might be amused by a few extra book burnings (and not only down south), but this will at most add a few hundred to the billion she already has.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 20, 2007).]
 

Why would his being gay have any relevance to the story? She already wrote massive works, why would we need the additional details about someone who, while significant, is not the main character? We learn as writers to cut cut cut anything that doesn't serve the plot. Don't you think even if she HAD put something in the story about his sexual orientation (which as a reader I personally would have felt it was out of place) that her editors would have cut that as they worked to edit the manuscript? I have to assume there are big chunks of backstory laying around.

Either way, though, I feel bad that this announcement may change how some feel about the books or the character. It's really enlightening to me to see how personally so many (myself included) take these books, this work, and how a detail like this can change things for a reader (or as one poster pointed out, the reader can choose to tune them out.) I don't know that I realized the incredible power of the author before this.
 

I was merely discussing Rowling's choice. See, obviously, we all have back story that never gets in the book, and some people even talk about alot of it after the fact, but we are not dealing with any old fantasy story. The series is HUGE; it has an enormous following and an enormous amount of press. Given this fact, I wanted to start a discussion of why Rowling chose to reveal a fairly controversial fact about a central character in her story after the fact, why she revealed it at all. Oh, and its not like she said it to one random fan in response to a question, it was at a press covered event with 2000 people in the audience. So, she knew this would become big news, you can't deny that.
 

In the news report I read JKR said it had always been in the back story; indeed, at one point she had to tell the film director to stop D having a liason with a female. I see no reason to believe she made it up later.

If D's sexuality has no bearing on the story, and if we're not judgmental about him being gay, it's not controversial.

Why'd she reveal it at the press conference? The newspaper report I read said it was in response to a fan's question. JKR also said the books were about tolerance.

I think that in a tolerant society there would be no fuss, no controversy. It wouldn't be news, not headlines anyway. I like to think that she's chosen to reveal it now in an attempt to use what influence she has to promote tolerance.

Just 2c,
Pat
 

Pat
 

Many times, as I read about "extra material" authors put in about characters after the fact, in fact I would say most of the times that happens, I don't care. I build the characters and events in my mind as I read along. And if I mispronounce a character's name for an entire series, well, in my mind that now IS the character's name. If an author tells me after the fact that a character was abused as a child, or once had a pet dog named spot, or is homosexual, and that information just doesn't seem to jive with the character I've created in my mind, then frankly, I disregard it. If it was vital to the plot, that info would be in the book. The fact that it's not, means that it wasn't, so I'm going to continue right along with the character I have in my mind.

Sometimes I'll even go farther than that. I recall when the last Star Trek: Next Gen. movie came out, I personally thought that the film reeked of "fanfic" type plotlines, and when (SPOILER ALERT if you care but somehow haven't seen this movie, Star Trek: Nemesis, then don't read the rest of this paragraph!!!) when Data died at the end of it, I was sufficiently fed up with enough of the plot of the movie to decide that this movie "didn't happen." In my Star Trek universe in my head, Data is alive. But that's an extreme, when compared to having a heterosexual Dumbledore in my personal Harry Potter universe.

For that matter, I don't really have a heterosexual Dumbledore in my head. I have essentially an asexual Dumbledore in my head. One who was so overwhelmed with the problems of the world on his shoulders from a relatively early age that he went without love or physical attraction for his entire life. A kind of celibate monk-wizard type figure. But that's my Dumbledore. Some people may have had a homosexual Dumbledore in their heads before Rowling even said anything. Some will change their Dumbledore after hearing this announcement, bowing to the will of the author. And some, like me, don't really care what the author wants to throw into the series, after the fact. What's done is done, and the image of my Dumbledore stopped evolving with the last book. She can say Dumbledore was actually a frog-turned-wizard by some magic spell for all I care, it's not going to affect the world in MY head unless I so choose.
Just my 2 cents.
 

While an author is writing, the book belongs to them. They can throw anything in there that they want. But once the book is completed, it belongs to the reader, who brings their own experiences to the story when they interpret what was written.

Now that Rowling has released this bit of extra information, I'm sure there will be people who haven't read the book who will read "everything you need to know about Harry Potter" before they read the actual books (probably for a literature class - why else would you?), so they will have a gay Dumbledore - who will behave in a manner that their personal experience dictates.

My Dumbledore is still the one I read in the books.
 

There's a lot that can't be said, at least from what's been reported. Further reading on my part might tell me more...I plan to some day, but, even now, on vacation, I just haven't had the time.

There seems to be different categories of response to this bit of information. (1) Those who are fine with it, and (2) those who are not. And the latter seems to divide into two sub-categories: (a) those who are angry with Rowling for not revealing it in the books, or (b) those who don't like the idea at all.
 

quote:

---

I'm not saying it should have been in the story. I'm saying it is inconsitant with the character she wrote, so it leads one to believe that she had come to this idea much later.

---

Inconsistent in EXACTLY what way? She should have shown him--how? That leads one to think you are saying gay men should only be represented in very stereotypical ways. I hope that is not what you are saying.

My honest reaction to this storm pretty much over nothing is that she answered a fan's question about backstory. So what?

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 21, 2007).]
 

I agree that in my mind Dumbledore was asexual.

As to misinterpreting characters, in Feist's Magician and subsequent books Thomas who is clearly and repeatedly mentioned as blonde, will always in my mind have black hair. I know I am wrong, but I imagined him that way first, and that is the way he will always stay.

Grant John

PS It wasn't Chewbacca who was gay, it was C3PO
 

quote:

---

That leads one to think you are saying gay men should only be represented in very stereotypical ways. I hope that is not what you are saying.

---

This is too perfect to pass up. I apologize in advance.

"It'th lucky it'th dark. I haven't bluthed tho much thince Madame Pomfrey told me thee liked my new earmuffth."

An awfully syrupy voice filled the kitchen, echoing in the confined space, issuing from the burning letter on the table.

"REMEMBER MY LATHT, PETUNIA."

"We both know there are other wayth of dethtroying a man, Tom." Dumbledore said with a flick of the wrist. "Merely taking your life would not thatithfy me, I admit--"

I'm glad we just finished book 7 here at my house. Reading time would have taken on an interesting quality otherwise... I wonder if I could have worked that lisp smoothly into the old-man-Sean-Connery voice I invented for Dumbledore...
 

[This message has been edited by TheOnceandFutureMe (edited October 21, 2007).]

[This message has been edited by TheOnceandFutureMe (edited October 21, 2007).]
 

quote:

---

That leads one to think you are saying gay men should only be represented in very stereotypical ways. I hope that is not what you are saying.

---

I was waiting for someone to cry "intolerant."
No, JeanneT, that's not what I'm saying.

I guess, as some of you have put it, Dumbledore being gay is inconsistant with MY reading of him. I too saw him as asexual. I would have raised an equally high eyebrow had JK Rowling said that Dumbledore had secret liasons with McGonagall.
Yeah . . . I'd rather keep the words Dumbledore and any kind of sexuality out of the same sentance.

 

(I didn't particularly want to say "intolerant" of any of the offered criticism of the idea, but, yeah, I was thinking it.)
 

Think about it as a storyteller for a moment. Whose point of view was the story delivered through? Harry's.

The capacity in which Dumbledore related to Harry? Headmaster and mentor.

Why the hell WOULD his sexuality come into play?

So it didn't make it into the books. Think about your own personal school heroes/mentors (if you had any.. I guess I'm just assuming here). Did their sexuality ever enter into your life? Did you then assume asexuality? (Which, come to think of it, is just as arbitrary as homosexuality, except it supports the events of the story LESS.)

Afterwards, a reader asked a question about one of the author's characters. You are basically angry that she didn't, a) keep her mouth shut and say, "Sorry! Can't tell you.. wasn't in the books!" or, b) change her mind about her pre-established character's backstory to better mesh with your personal worldview.

And this notion that an author has no privileged position when it comes to the interpretation of their stories (the so-called intentionalist fallacy) is crap. Of course they have a say. Just as you have a say in your own stories.

Interpretations are open, of course, and you have the right to raise an eyebrow. Doesn't mean it didn't happen or wasn't true.

And you may not be saying that all gay men should be depicted in stereotypical ways, but you sure are suggesting it. Or your writing is being unclear, because at least three people have independently arrived at the same conclusion.

[This message has been edited by Rahl22 (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

Gays can be as asexual as heteros.
 

If Dumbledore was gay, why wasn't that part of Rita Skinner's expose? Skinner's book is implied to claim that Dumbledore is a pedophile. If there was even a hint of a rumor that Dumbledore was gay, it seems like the kind of thing the Skinner character would discover and use to support her other character assaults.

On the other hand, this does help explain Dumbledore's permissive attitude about Aberforth and the goats.

[This message has been edited by J (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

I'm personally excited by this news - not that Dumbledore is gay, per say, but that she had a bit of character background that she either coud not or would not include in the text proper, but (through various extremely subtle hints) was still picked up by one of her readers. I've written similar things, where two non-POV characters have a relationship that the POV character does not know about. The one incident in particular I'm thinking of had no bearing on the story whatsoever, and to include it was to force these two characters to reveal something to the POV character that they normally would not have. Similarly, we see most of the Harry Potter world though Harry's POV. That Harry didn't know (or was not overtly told) about Dumbledore's sexuality is not strange, nor is it strange that we didn't pick it up. It must have been a good feeling for JK Rowling, though, when someone asked that question of her.

Jayson Merryfield

EDIT

quote:

---

If Dumbledore was gay, why wasn't that part of Rita Skinner's expose? Skinner's book is implied to claim that Dumbledore is a pedophile. If there was even a hint of a rumor that Dumbledore was gay, it seems like the kind of thing the Skinner character would discover and use to support her other character assaults.

---

I personally suspect that JK Rowling intentionally redacted whatever slightly less subtle hints she might have include in her books, as a way of dodging more criticism. Her books were already being banned on the basis of magic and witchcraft already. An openly gay headmaster? Social conservatives would have spontaneously combusted, I believe, but not before leaping on the nearest display case full of copies of Deathly Hallows.

[This message has been edited by Wolfe_boy (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

First, it bothers me that so many people jump to the conclusion that someone is homophobic if he or she feels like "gay Dumbledore" doesn't work. Second, I'm going to give a very specific reason why it doesn't.

Here's the problem: it weakens a powerful, central struggle.

Quite apart from being about intolerance, the Harry Potter books also investigate lust for power. First it's just Voldemort. Then Rowling adds the Ministry of Magic. Then, to stuff the topic full of nuance that it only pretended to have before, she has a favorite sympathetic character (Dumbledore) struggle with it.

If Dumbledore is gay, it weakens his greatest weakness and destroys all that nuance. We're left to think - or even hope - that Dumbledore was merely lusting over a golden-haired cutie rather than lusting over might and power. It's all immediately excusable. He undergoes no real change, no real repentance, no real progression - he only felt bad about a bad thing that happened. Dumbledore becomes static.

It's much better if Dumbledore is left with no excuse. Then it's just him against his weakness.
 

I also think it was a cheap shot. If she wanted to make a character gay, she should have put it in the books. It's like she wants to make a statement that he's gay (again, it makes no difference to the story) but was too much of a coward to put it in the books.

But that doesn't matter. To me, Dumbledore is what he is. He's not gay or straight, he's just Dumbledore. OSC put it best when he said that a book becomes a possession of the reader (paraphrasing extremely loose). Basically, the reader may see something the author didn't intend, and that's okay. The character and story becomes property of the reader. If someone want to believe that Ron went back in time to become Dumbledore (as some readers believe) that's okay. Sure, Rowling told us that it wasn't the case, but it's not in the books, so we can believe what we want until the books tell us otherwise.

Now there are a lot of people that hate the books for religious reasons. I'm Christian and I don't have a problem with them. CS Lewis, one of the major religious figures of our time, used magic to explain Christianity. So, who cares. But there are bigots, and despite what HuntGod inferred, they aren't limited to the south, and the majority of southerners are not bigots. They're everywhere. I just try to ignore them.

Others on this board have said that the reason we aren't told he was gay in the book was that it didn't serve the plot. According to Rowling the reason Dumbledore got caught up in Grindewald was that he was in love with him and that love blinded him. I'm sorry, but if that was the case, tell us. (SPOILER WARNING AHEAD) Wouldn't have King's Cross Station, when he's talking to Harry be the perfect place to say, "I loved him, that's why I had a hard time killing him." To me, the story that was written works better. He liked Grindewald because he was a genius. He felt guilty about Grindewald's actions because he knew he helped create him. He had a hard time confronting him because he knew he (Dumbledore) was as guilty as anyone of killing his sister.

Perhaps because Rowling tries to write about tolerance she decided to add the footnote about Dumbledore being gay. Sorry, doesn't work for me. If she wanted to do that, she should have brought it out earlier. Maybe in a future book she should have a key gay character. Then we can have the discussion on how we should treat people. Then we can have the discussion on bigotry. The way she did it just makes me feel like some of the deaths at the end of Deathly Hallows. Hollow. I don't feel anything. It's like it's just thrown in there for effect.

Imagine this: When Harry and Ron first get to Hogwarts in book 1, remember Ron telling Harry that Dumbledore was mad, and that it seemed Ron respected him more for it. What if he had said, he's gay, and it seemed he respected him more for it? They you build a whole story based on the fact that this guy is gay, and that it doesn't change the fact that he's one of the best and most respected wizards of the age. Readers might not like that he's gay, but they have to accept and respect the man.

And I agree with trouser crit that the story is more powerful if (as even said in the books) Dumbledore was afraid of power because he saw how he was tempted by it. He saw how it corrupted a friend (Grindewald) and how it killed his sister.

So, I guess the point it, will I read these books again? Of course I freaking will. Even if he's gay, straight, transexual, or asexual. I don't care.

Will I read anything else Rowling publishes? Of course I freaking will

Okay, end of post.
 

/Just trying to instill a little humor.
 

The difference between the two is that the reader does learn that Ged is non-caucasian in the book. If it is a character trait for Dumbledore and it effected his actions or been part of the rumors Rita Skinner was bandying about, which it seems like it would have, the reader should have known in the story.

Does it really change how I think of him? No, although I understand the arguement trousercuit made about weakening the character. Does it add to the story? No. Do I wish Rawling had kept her mouth shut? Yes. Would I have liked to have discovered this facet of the man in a story rather than being told by the author? Definately, yes.

[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

Quite honestly, if there had been any hints in the story that Dumbledore had a tragic love in his past, and then (even post publication) Rowling said that that love was Grindewald, I would have thought it a rather compelling sidenote.
BUT, I didn't see any clue of that in any of the books, and that made me wonder if Rowling had really intended this from the beginning. And THAT is what I wanted to discuss in this topic. (just to be clear)THAT="Do you think Rowling always intended Dumbledore to be gay or is this a creation after the fact?" Some of you got all worked up because I sounded negative about a topic that had homosexuality loosely included. Well, I hope I've made my point more clear.

[This message has been edited by wrenbird (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

But, no, I can't really identify anything JK Rowling did wrong here, just that it differs from what I would have done, or what I would have liked to see done. And therefore I'm against it, but only out of concern for my own vision of who the characters are/were and what motivates(ed) them.
 

I see "asexual" as someone who apparently is not attracted to anyone of any size or shape. Emphasis on apparently here, because the writer can choose to conceal said character's sexual orientation, or sexual activities. And all the more so if said activity is not in any way connected to the plot.

Of, say, the characters in "The Lord of the Rings," I'm sure of only one of them "getting him some" at any point during the main narrative itself. Even then, it's only apparent by its results. Indirectly, there was probably some here and there (though probably not among the major characters), and, in the vast amount of background material Tolkien prepared, there must be much more---or several species would have died out before the story began.
 

quote:

---

Okay, I also think it's wrong to out someone else. If Dumbledore wanted everyone to know he was gay, it was up to him to say it.

---

Skip the humor - here's the heart of the issue. If Dumbledore never saw the need to out himself, or confide in another character (namely Harry) in such a way that the reader would notice, why should JK Rowling out him? I reread the article, and the exact quotations. The question was referring to Dumbledore's search for true love. A simple Yes or no is the correct answer, possibly with some illuminating explainations, but, "Dumbledore is gay" is hardly the answer that was expected, I would assume. I had assumed that someone else had discovered it first, or guessed at it, and she confirmed the fact. In retrospect, I was wrong. It seems like she has calously outed the poor Headmaster, who (it would seem) has guarded this bit of information quite closely.

Be forewarned, though - I am a firm believer in characters having a life outside of the author's intentions. Characters I write often times do things I didn't expect, or didn't agree with, simply because they chose to.

Jayson Merryfield
 

But then, short of revealing plot points, there's no reason not to keep these details to yourself if anybody asks. And, obviously, somebody asked Rowling about this.
 

Hasn't she made enough?

[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

quote:

---

If there was even a hint of a rumor that Dumbledore was gay, it seems like the kind of thing the Skinner character would discover and use to support her other character assaults.

---

Maybe, perhaps in her world being gay was something that would not cause embarrassment. Maybe she wanted a world where calling someone 'gay' is akin to calling them 'straight' - no one would care.

Holy crap, I'm arguing Harry Potter!

Will someone start a Chuck Palahniuk thread?
 

quote:

---

However the series was already high on the bigot hit list because it was "satanic" (pronounced with a thick southern accent)

---

[Snarfles coffee] HuntGod, do you not see the irony of your "thick southern accent"?

quote:

---

Will someone start a Chuck Palahniuk thread?

---

ROFL

Regarding attitudes towards homosexuality in general, I find this interesting: people will swear up and down that being gay makes no difference, but the same people won't peep when a gay man says he has "infallible gaydar". There must be a contradiction there somewhere.

Regarding the rage about the Gay Mage, either
(a) his being gay should make no significant difference (i.e., his character could be "played" by a straight mage with no significant changes to the book), or
(b) his being gay should make a significant difference, in which case people should have noticed it.

If the former, then the revelation is irrelevant, and, as someone else said earlier, Rowling's commentary is just commentary; if the latter, then by making it impossible to tell that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling didn't represent him as a gay man.

In other words, either her comment was irrelevant, or it showed that she doesn't characterize all that well. We should just get over it.

[This message has been edited by oliverhouse (edited October 22, 2007).]
 

If it isn't in the story...it isn't in the story.
 

I personally take what she says to heart (though I don't have an opinion about whether or not others should). In my mind, Dumbledore really is gay, though I never knew it before, even after all those 3500+ pages. That doesn't surprise me. I have gay friends and have known them way better than I know Dumbledore before finding out.

quote:

---

Be forewarned, though - I am a firm believer in characters having a life outside of the author's intentions. Characters I write often times do things I didn't expect, or didn't agree with, simply because they chose to.

---

Jason, if it wasn't for the fact that I have encountered this very thing in its most tangible form, I would think you are totally insane.

But I have experienced this with my MC quite a bit, and it really blow my mind. And sometimes I have mixed feelings about it initially, because it isn't always what I'd scripted in my outline, or doesn't happen exactly how I planned, but looking back I generally see the richness that it brings. And I really wonder how it is that this made-up person can bring himself to life and start dictating the way he does things that I force him to do.

[This message has been edited by Zero (edited October 23, 2007).]
 

Another thing I must address is the bigotry against social conservatives. If someone made a joke about homosexuals bursting into flame there would be a major outcry. Stereotyping everyone who disagrees with you as rabid book burning bigots is just a bigoted as those you are trying to fight. [/rant]

The issue for me is not Dumbly's relationship with Grindly. If it had been more apparent in the books I would have accepted it. It would have changed my view, but I would still love the books. The issue is how much control the author has over the reader. That begins and ends with the text.

Oh and someone said Grindly was blond, no he wasn't, he had dark hair like Victor Krum and the fool I can't remember who ran Durmstrang. (Just kidding, you are certainly entitled to your view of him. I just saw all three of those as from the middle to east European race where blondies are rare.)
 

Should Rowling devulge backstory that isn't in the book if someone asks? I see no reason why not. From having told the director of the movie, which was pretty much bound to eventually get around, she wasn't trying to keep it secret anyway. It just had no relevence to the plot.

As far whether Dumbledor should have been written gay, if Rowling thinks that he was gay, then he was "written gay." She didn't have to throw in something that someone else considers "what gay people do." I personally don't think it's a big deal

I do think it is sad that so many people "hate" the fact that Dumbledore was gay or that it "damages" their perception of him. It says exactly how much prejudice there still is around, if anyone doubted it. But of all the groups in the world, prejudice against gays is among the most widely acceptable too, so we can hardly be surprised.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 23, 2007).]
 

quote:

---

Skip the humor

---

Oh, and it's Skeeter! Rita Skeeter, not Skinner. Come on people, have you read the books?

And, as a side note, I know Rowling said she's going to write an encyclopedia, and that's all well and good, but I hope she doesn't become like Tolkien (as good as he was) and keep tweaking and working on this world forever. I'd like to see her move on and write other things. I've said before that she should leave this franchise alone for 20 years and then if she wants to come back to it and write The Adult Adventures of a Grown-Up Harry and Ron Fighting Evil Wizards (AAGUHRFEW for short), then that's fine. We as readers will have aged 20 years and we'll be able to enjoy these characters as adults.

Or just leave it alone and move on. Whatever. Either way I'd like to see if she can write something else that I found as compelling as these novels. Some writers only have one good story in them. I doubt anything else she ever writes will be as successful as Potter (I mean, what is), but it'd be interesting nonetheless to see what she has in her.
 

Homosexuality isn't a state of being capable of being prejudiced against (like race); it's a set of behaviors. This is true regardless of whether there is a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction (think alcoholism--that's the product of a genetic disposition as well, but we have no problem recognizing it as a behavior rather than an immutable state of being).

The relevance of all this to the discussion is that Rowling's announcement doesn't affect who Dumbledore "is" as a character as much as it forces reinterpretation of his actions and motives. Regardless of how anyone feels about Dumbledore preferring men sexually, everyone should be a little bit sad that Rowling asks us to reinterpret the subtle and mature "ethics of power" theme to the much less worthwhile "emotions get in the way of stuff" theme.

[This message has been edited by J (edited October 23, 2007).]
 

I personally like that Dumblydore is gay, leave more rampant totty for us real men :-P

I do however get real irritated that homosexuality gets crossed in the minds of many as a perversion like pedophilia. You don't have anyone getting upset that their MARRIED straight den mother will lose control and molest the boys under her auspice. I get aggravated that the same logic is not applied to homosexuals.
 

quote:

---

But as far as we know, Dumbledore had not a single fully realized romance in 115 years of life. That's pathetic, and a little creepy. It's also a throwback to an era of pop culture when the only gay characters were those who committed suicide or were murdered. As Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1981) points out, in film after film of the mid-century—Rebel Without a Cause; Rebecca; Suddenly, Last Summer—the gay characters must pay for their existence with death. Like a lisping weakling, Dumbledore is a painfully selfless, celibate, dead gay man, so forgive me if I don't see Rowling's revelation as great progress.

---

[This message has been edited by halogen (edited October 23, 2007).]
 

quote:

---

Oh and someone said Grindly was blond, no he wasn't, he had dark hair like Victor Krum and the fool I can't remember who ran Durmstrang. (Just kidding, you are certainly entitled to your view of him. I just saw all three of those as from the middle to east European race where blondies are rare.)

---

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/grindelwald.html

quote:

---

APPEARANCE
Hair: Blonde, curly shoulder-length hair (DH13).
Characteristics: A wild, gleeful look about him (DH13).

---

I win! Ha ha!

I've read Deathly Hallows three times now (twice for me, once for my kids), so you might just have to defer to me on future questions about Harry Potter arcana.
 

quote:

---

This is true regardless of whether there is a genetic predisposition to same sex attraction

---

And prejudice is not dependant on whether what is being "pre-judged" is a behavior or a genetic trait.

Let's take a look at what it does indeed mean:

Prejudice:
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions.

Someone may decide they have the right to be prejudiced toward homosexuals because they think homosexual attraction is in and of itself evil, but that is nontheless a form of prejudice since is is an adverse judgement or opinion formed beforehand without regard to what the person has actually done.

Edit:

quote:

---

everyone should be a little bit sad that Rowling asks us to reinterpret the subtle and mature "ethics of power" theme to the much less worthwhile "emotions get in the way of stuff" theme.

---

And since this is a topic I have strong feelings about I'll restrain myself from further comments.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 24, 2007).]
 

Second, Rowling stated that Dumbledore "fell in love with" Grindly (love it - it's like Voldy) and that was part of what snared him. Injecting "blinded by love" into Dumbledore's struggle with lust for power weakens the struggle, period. My inferences about Dumbledore's motivations (which are what count - there's no point in talking about someone's "attitude" vs. a fictional character's "motivations") change if I take Dumbledore's newly-revealed sexual orientation into account when I read Deathly Hallows. Things get more tragic, but Dumbledore doesn't have to journey nearly as far.

Prejudice has nothing to do with it. I'd say the same thing if Dumbledore were straight and Grindlypants were a woman, and Rowling revealed that Dumbledore had fallen in love with her. A little more tragic, a lot less struggle - overall, it's weaker.

 

JeanneT,

quote:

---

one's genetic makeup is indeed a "state of being" and is totally non-dependant on one's behavior... homosexuality was hardly a "set of behaviors..."

---

I don't think "behavior" is simply concrete examples of action. In economics class, when we are talking about the effect of the interest rate on the market we can make fairly accurate predictions of what will happen because we know the market's behavior, even though it hasn't--by your definition--behaved yet. I define behavior as how something(one) is predisposed to act, how it is going to act, and I include homosexual attraction as a behavior whether it is voluntary or not. Whether or not Dumbledore produced any outward signs of concrete homosexuality is not known and not relevant, he obvious exhibited homosexual thoughts and that is--most strictly--a behavior.

quote:

---

And prejudice is not dependant on whether what is being "pre-judged" is a behavior or a genetic trait.

---

I point out that inconsistency because, regardless of whether homosexuality is wonderful or dreadful, it is a behavior. So is prejudice. Or--more appropriately--rampant drinking. Alcoholism has been proven to be linked to genetic predisposition, homosexuality has made a strong case for that as well, and as for prejudice and other behavior, for all we know they are genetic as well, it's unclear. But the ultimate point here is that we can criticize someone's behavior and it isn't the very same thing as criticizing their race or gender, which are not behaviors.

That analogy would be invalid. And it is neither logical nor fair to stuff them together into some kind of amorphous blob.

Also:

quote:

---

Rowling answered a question about backstory. She didn't ask you to reinterpret a thing. If that causes you to reinterpret something because you somehow think that homosexuals are not bound by ethics that is your thinking.

---

And it truly is about motivation. His motivations may not have changed, but his dientified motivations have, and as readers our only tools to see his motivations are what the author tells us in the writing, and whatever speculation we have on our own. Rowling neither exposed this in the story, nor did I speculate it on my own. Therefore--to me and many others--this is new motivation information. Which forces me, regardless of Rowlings intentions, to re-evaluate his motives.

And it seems obvious to me that he was actually struggling more and more with his heartfelt attraction to Grindy, and less and less with his inner conscience that tells him "these ideas are immoral." Had he been intensely struggling with both the issues, he likely would never have confronted Grindy at all.

quote:

---

And since this is a topic I have strong feelings about I'll restrain myself from further comments.

---

Edit: Ok I'm giving in to temptation.

quote:

---

But the ultimate point here is that we can criticize someone's behavior

---

Emotions are not a behavior. I do not judge someone for their prejudice (an emotion) but for their attempts to force that prejudice onto society (a behavior). But evidently seeing the difference in something that is an emotion and something that is a behavior is not something you are going to accept.

I am sorry but I consider saying that thoughts are a "behavior" is wildly inaccurate. That is a matter of trying to force a definition to fit your own prejudice and nothing more. Behavior is by DEFINITION an ACT. Thought and emotion are simply not acts.

In your economics class example, you are PREDICTING behaviors. When they take place they are acts and external, not something someone has merely thought about. You are confusing the fact that you can try to predict someone's behavior with the behavior itself--although I suspect it is more an excuse for your prejudice than an actual confusion.

I am not going to convince you that somehow having feelings for someone of your own sex isn't evil. You aren't going to convince me that is it.

The fact that Dumbledore had to fight someone he loved hardly made the struggle less. Saying this shows, in my opinion an amazinly superficial knowledge of human feelings. If there would be anything that would increase struggle more it would be seeing someone you love going in a way you yourself might be tempted (thus increasing your temptation) and that at the same time you know to be evil. It increases both the struggle and the tragedy not lessens it. But since it was always clear in the book that Dumbledore loved Grindly (she just didn't put the name on it), I see no change.

Sorry to have given in to temptation to comment further. This isn't going to convince anyone of anything. Time to stop--for me at any rate.

[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited October 24, 2007).]
 

Welcome back to the topic!

I think our disagreement stems completely from this fundamental thing.

quote:

---

I am sorry but I consider saying that thoughts are a "behavior" is wildly inaccurate.

---

And I think it's wildly accurate.

I suppose I cannot convince you to see things my way, but understand, at least--as best you can--why I think this.

Physical action, or surface action, is only the top of a list of ideas that are interconnected and cannot be separated from behavior. This includes: forming an idea, motivation, opportunity, and action. Without each of these things, no character can act.

I therefore define behavior as including thoughts, which I believe are essential to "forming an idea," and "motivation," and especially "recognizing an opportunity."

For the following example, forgive the dry-technical nature I am using to approach this subject:

If I am pre-disposed to behave straight, which I am, incidentally , that pre-disposition helps me form the idea that said girl across the room, we'll call her Jane, is sexually attractive. (Or preferable to whatever other options I happen to notice at this time.) I am motivated by my carnal instincts to be drawn to her and consider her as a potential mate. This may not be voluntary, but it is a driving factor. I think about this, agree with it, and then start thinking of/considering opportunities to get from here to there, strangers to mates, and assess the possibility of making it. (This may sound long-winded and over-rational, but countless such analyses are performed by every single person per day in fractions of seconds.) This thought process, driven by a craving for reproduction, which is created by my genetic predispositions, is an action. It is neither physical nor outward, but even if I dismiss the desire and decide no good opportunities exist, I am still acting even though I never approach her or give myself an opportunity to see her again.

By my definition I have behaved, that sounds odd to say, so, rather I have have exhibited behavior, even if it was invisble and seemingly, outwardly, inconsequential. And it seems to me by your definition I have not.

To be consistent with your definition of behavior, it seems that by choosing to not pursue this woman, this opportunity, I have not exhibited behavior. Even though I have made an active choice.

When Dumbledore struggled to get himself to confront Grindy, it wasn't that he exhibited obvious homosexual behavior by trying to seduce him or something, rather he was delayed in making "the right choice," as he saw it, because he was attracted to Grindy. A conflict of interest. Which is not the same conflict of interest that seemed, to many of us, to exist before this revelation.

J and Zero claim that it's moral to have prejudice against homosexuality, as understood to be a set of behaviors. Zero then extends "behaviors" to include how people are predisposed to act, but it's not clear to me whether he thinks it's moral to have prejudice against predisposition - or even thinks morality can be regarded separately from predisposition.

If it's the latter, there may be no point in Zero continuing with the discussion about whether prejudice is moral. Depending on his views, his only point may be that this part of the discussion is meaningless. (EDIT: Or he may, as he just did before I finished with my post, want to now discuss whether his views are correct.)

JeanneT apparently defines homosexuality as a set of predispositions and claims that it's not moral to have prejudice against it.

It looks like Zero and JeanneT use the same basic definition of homosexuality (predispositions) and possibly disagree on prejudice. J uses a different definition (external behaviors).

Here's how I break it down:

Same-sex attraction: a predisposition (rarely voluntary or learned) to attraction to members of the same sex.

Homosexuality: acting on predispositions to attraction to members of the same sex.

For the sake of my ego, can we use these definitions? Things might go much more smoothly.

[This message has been edited by trousercuit (edited October 24, 2007).]
 

It is my opinion that if you disagree with homosexuality, as I do, you can do so without shunning or mistreating the person. Sure, I'm against homosexuality in principal. But I'm also against bigotry. The same set of beliefs that tell me homosexuality is wrong tell me that all people have agency, or the right to choose. Had Dumbledore been a real man and not just a fictional character he would have had the right to choose his sexuality and not be treated badly because of it. As said before I dislike JK Rowling outing him after the novel came out, I think it weakens the power struggle. So my arguments against Dumbledore being gay in this case aren't moral, there literary.

I have chosen a heterosexual lifestyle. I have also chosen a Christian lifestyle. Those are my rights. Others have chosen a homosexual lifestyle. I say, let them be. It's their right to make that choice. If a Christian (or any other religious person) wants religious freedom then they have to grant that same freedom to others. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, then we have to respect that. We don't have to agree with it, but we have to respect it.
 

You know, I think Christians are sometimes as much the victims of prejudice as homosexuals. Some people hear that someone is a Christian and immediately assume that they are a raging bigot.

[This message has been edited by wrenbird (edited October 24, 2007).]
 

I'm a Christian, but I hate religions. When someone comes to me to tell me that I can't read for myself, and that if I follow their interpretation of the Bible I'll be right and everyone else wrong. My usual thought is, "What drugs might you be on?"

Now we love to tie in dislike, and even hatred of homosexuals to religion. While most religions do call it evil, I can admit I have no like of it myself. While I don't indiscriminately hate those who are gay, I find the actions of gays to go against biology...or nature. Humans are very much designed for male and female to have sex with each other. This is the way we are. Two men cannot have any form of "natural" sex. They aren't designed for it. Two women have the same problem. So is it really a religious basis that homosexuals are disliked and even hated? Or could it be that because it is not what was intended by our physical makeup, those who are not gay think it is wrong?

Hatred exists all around for more reasons than we want to admit. To blindly tag it as a religious bias only applies if it is purely religious in nature. To say that Christians and Muslims hate each other based on religious beliefs....well, a few crusades and long years of fighting (and some still are), would make that something easy to believe. To say Christians hate gays based purely on religion, I think you have to look at those who are performing the violence (on both sides) first and see if it is really the Christians, or those touting religion as their excuse.

We should not confuse excuses with motivations. Hatred of homosexuals doesn't need any form of religion.
 

quote:

---

Please don't assume that 'Christian' necessarily means hetero, much less anti-gay. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the way one conservative section of the church hijacks the term and attempts to apply it exclusively to itself.

---

quote:

---

I have to disagree with RMatthewWare's use of choice. You choose your religion. You don't choose to be straight, gay, or anywhere in between. I'm not terribly sure on his use of lifestyle either. I'm confused as to why he went with religious freedom over sexual orientation. I only get that his religion lets him dislike people if he doesn't do anything to hurt them. If he's saying something else I need help understanding.

---

You do choose your lifestyle. Everyone has certain persuasions to sex, personality, sense of humor, interests in life. It is your choice that makes you what you are. I believe it was Zero that said some people deal with same-sex attraction but don't consider themselves gay. Your actions are a choice, though perhaps your persuasion to be attracted to someone is not.

My religion does not let me dislike people and I didn't say anything of the kind. The point I wanted to make was that someone opposed to homosexuality because of religion does NOT have a right to hate them. What I was saying was that as long as someone's choices don't hurt anyone, then we have to respect that. We don't have to like the choice, but we can't hate the chooser. Is that any clearer?

A lot of evil has been done in the name of religion, but don't blame the religion, blame the members. Just because the members aren't true doesn't mean that the church isn't and it doesn't mean we should stop trying to improve ourselves, even through religion. I think those of us who call ourselves Christian, or any other religion of tolerance, should really practice that tolerance first. If you feel someone is sinning then reach out to them. If they reject you, then that's their right, just as you have a right to believe as you do.

I still love Dumbledore (to get us back to the point
 

Putting aside incorrect (and unfortunately bigoted) assumptions about who evangelicals hate, I don't even morally disapprove of gay Dumbledore. The books imply that after his teenage years, he ceased engaging in homosexual behavior (to whatever extent he had been practiced it) and spent his life in celibacy. This, to me, is a principled, morally upright, and admirable way for Dumbledore to conduct his life. So I don't morally disapprove of Dumbledore--if anything, I would hold him up as a moral example.

I do disapprove (artistically, not morally) of how Rowling inserted new information requiring a reinterpretation of the text in a way that diminishes and cheapens the deepest themes of the story.

[This message has been edited by J (edited October 25, 2007).]
 

The reality is that every successful author has boatloads of character stuff that never makes it into the story. Look at Tolkien... the only reason we know he had so much backstory is that it was included in the appendices, and subsequent books like The Silmarillion; an option Rowling didn't have. You can successfully argue that the motivation to the characters from all Tolkien's backstory was profound, but that still isn't enough to make it important enough to become part of the tale being told in LoTR.

The only reason to see the new information Rowling has given us as a "cheat" is because you wish to see it that way. It's no more a cheat than the unrevealed backstory developed by Tolkien, Zelazny, Herbert, Zimmer Bradley, or a gallery of other authors who have given us such pleasure in deeply constructed, elaborate alternate worlds.
 

Anywho, I've been debating whether or not to jump into the homosexual good vs bad debate. It seems to me that most such turn into a bramble of "oh, you believe that? You hateful bigot." "Your the one who is a hateful bigot." Not that I'm saying this of you guys, I wouldn't have expected such simplicities from a group of people who constantly train in the art of rhetoric.

I will add my sentiment though. I believe sex outside of a God sanctioned marriage is a sin, and to that I believe that God would not sanction a homosexual marriage. (As to whether the state should sanction it is a different issue.) Now this is what I believe, does that mean that I hate people who do that? I also believe that smoking tobacco, or anything else short of ham is wrong. It destroys bodies, both the smoker and those around them. Does that mean that I hate smokers? I don't recall anything in the bible that says I must hate anyone, in fact it says that the second great commandment is love thy neighbor as thyself. (with the implied commandment of love thyself.) Why can't I decide for myself that the actions of someone else are wrong without being called a bigot? (And I am talking about actions here not dispositions.) Now I'll add a disclaimer, I am not talking for all Christians all over the earth. I am talking for this Christian. This has been the product of scripture study, meditation and prayer, but I don't expect others to hold my view. I will share it, and defend it, but someone could hold a different view on this and I would still salute them as a brother or sister in the Lord.

As to thoughts being actions, I see some value in that. The Lord, after all, looketh upon the heart. But I hold that someone who has had an evil thought and overcame it is a far better person then one who has never had such a trial. (As if such a person ever existed.)

To make a long post even longer (for I don't expect to post again, I've said my peace) I wish to add to the bit about predispositions. So what if someone is predisposed to something or the other? (And I disagree with those who say that homosexuality is unnatural. I love nature films. I can tell you that it is the "natural" way to get sexual release any way one can. I think saying these things are counterproductive to the debate.) Just because something is in one's genes doesn't make it acceptable. What about those unfortunate souls who are born with violent tendencies? Should we just allow them to harm other people because they were "genetically predisposed?"