posted
I'm rather disappointed by this announcement but not because I'm bothered by a gay Dumbledore per se. You see, I've been mulling over the question "If Rowling were to write (or authorize someone else to write) more stories in the Harry Potter universe, what stories would I like to read." At the top of my list was the story of Grindelwald and Dumbledore.
A story, however, that involves a homoerotic relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald is so unlikely to have the mass appeal associated with Harry Potter that Rowling will never do it. It also is unlikely to be a story that would interest me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But she specifically said that it was unrequited. Which means there would be no homoeroticism involved. At most, we might see Dumbledore's admiration for Grindelwald go a bit further than you would have previously expected.
Still sounds like a fun read to me.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dumbledore having an unrequited love affair with Grindelwald would change the tenor of the story significantly. As Dagonee noted earlier.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If the suspension of critical judgment is based on Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald like a ton of bricks, I think it makes the whole recollection less powerful: it transforms a seduction by an appealing but ultimately evil philosophy into romantic desire overriding good sense, reducing a powerful theme of means and ends into an after school special.
Note that this objection is not based solely on D being gay, but on reinterpreting that as the reason for D's flirtation with "for their own good" justifications for totalitarianism.
This is a story about how two extraordinarily talents individuals meet, become fast friends but in the end pursue diametrically opposed paths and ultimately must battle each other. To me that story is far less interesting if there is an unrequited romatic love affair between the two.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should also add, that I think the homosexual element, even with no eroticism, would make this story considerably out of the current main stream. Part of the lure of Harry Potter lies in the fact that even though he lives in a magical world, much of what he experiences with friends, rivalries, bullies, teenage romance, exams, teachers, etc. is familiar to the average person. Dealing with unrequited homosexual love is not. I suppose that unrequited love is much the same whether you are gay or straight, but I don't see the mainstream relating to that situation the way we related to for example, the conflicts between Harry and Ron.
Plus, if conservative Christians wanted to ban Harry Potter, imagine what they'd do with a story about Dumbledore's unrequired gay love.
That makes it far less likely that the story will be written or published.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it probably would have been written with a fairly subtle subtext, that would have had elements that people would have debated whether DD was smitten or merely impressed by the young man.
If she hadn't said, "He's gay" it probably would have been a lovely thing to read. Like maybe if we didn't know from the beginning that Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader, maybe the prequels could have been better.
The gay thing wouldn't make me less likely to read it. I just finished Lord John and teh Brotherhood of the Blade by Diana Gabaldon (the second in a series of mystery novels in which the title character is gay) and enjoyed it quite a lot.
But I think the outing of DD probably DOES mean that story won't be told (at least not with the subtlty and ambiguity it deserves) and that really does suck out loud.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is a story about how two extraordinarily talents individuals meet, become fast friends but in the end pursue diametrically opposed paths and ultimately must battle each other. To me that story is far less interesting if there is an unrequited romatic love affair between the two.
I don't see why it can't be both.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think the outing of DD probably DOES mean that story won't be told (at least not with the subtlty and ambiguity it deserves) and that really does suck out loud.
I've actually wondered whether Rowling made the statement in order to avoid pressure to write that story. I'm definitely becoming too cynical (is that the right word).
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have been thinking of another option for Dumbledore.
This option is, simply, infatuation. Infatuation can hit heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals alike, and it trumps orientation.There are just some individuals who are so personally powerful and alluring that people mistake their infatuation with love.
A person growing up in a homophobic society would assume they were homosexual if they felt and admitted to a same-sex attraction.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
At one level, I suspect such a novel would spend a a certain amount of time with Dumbledore dealing with his own sexuality. I know that dealing with ones own sexuality (either straight or gay) is an important literary theme addressed in many coming of age novels. I've read several books dealing with this theme and some of theme are great. None the less, this is not my one of my favorite themes. Maybe thats because teen angst wasn't particularly interesting to me when I was a teen and is even less now. Possibly its because I had little difficulty coming to grips with my own sexuality. At any rate, while I don't avoid novels that deal with young people confronting their sexuality, I don't seek them out either. Its a subject that isn't personally compelling.
But I also recognize that a novel on the subject could be written in which there was an unrequited love affair between DD and Grindelwald but DD never dealt with his sexuality. Which gets to my real reason for thinking such a novel would be less interesting.
There are a variety of questions that I think a good story about DD and Grindelwald would deal with. Here are some of them.
Why was DD attracted to the Dark Arts and power as a young man?
What was the process by which he transformed into the Dumbledore who we saw in Harry Potter? What inner ethical battles did he fight?
How do two people who are soul mates end up choosing such different life paths?
What inner conflicts did DD and GW face when they fought each other?
In HP, we see a hint that Grindelwald has come to regret his crimes, something Voldemort could not do. Voldemort was a Hero without a hint of redeeming virtue. Perhaps Grindelwald could be a more complex villain, one we could empathize perhaps even like.
I think that a romantic relationship between DD and GW would dilute the answer to all of those. As Dagonee put it, the romantic angle reduces potentially "powerful themes into an after school special".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this has already been talked about in this thread, but for me, J.K. Rowling announcing that Dumbledore is/was gay didn't change much for me. I don't recall any times during the books when it would have impacted anything. I don't think I would view Dumbledore much differently knowing he is supposed to be gay and reading the books for the first time. We know so little of his life throughout the series that it doesn't make a difference. He's basically a flat character from a young adult fantasy series. Announcing that "oh yeah, he's gay" doesn't give him much more depth, IMO.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I understand the whole "dilution" argument and certainly agreed when I first read it. I felt a certain sadness upon realizing that Dumbledore's past might be less tortured than it appeared on the page. The revelation of his history is probably the most impactful event that I read in the series. I instantly loved idea and was really intrigued that Rowling would take Dumbledore's character into that darker territory. I was always an advocate of the idea that Dumbledore was terribly flawed while my friends and family upheld him as a pristine figure with godly knowledge and foresight.
But the more I think about it, I don't think a relationship, especially an unrequited one cheapens Dumbledore's past. The fact that it was unrequited probably says something about the idea of "attraction." Did Dumbledore fall onto a such path in pursuit of Grindelwald or was he already attracted to these darker ideas and then took to Grindelwald because he seems to embody them? It reminded me of friends who I'v seen fall into heavy drinking and drug use and debauchery. And people around them would blame their new boyfriend or girlfriend and I would think about how these "significant others" weren't the cause, merely the vehicles to the dark desires that these friends already had. I think that's probably how I view the AD/GG relationship now. I think Dumbledore's psyche was already full of these darker thoughts and GG's arrival just became an outlet, a way for him to verbalize and act on his feelings. And at that age, who's to say what kind of unrequited "love" it was. Maybe it was more of an obsession, maybe just a base physical attraction. I just worry about people, in just the fan community in general, chalking up Dumbledore's dark past to "puppy-love."
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the revelation, especially since it wasn't in the books, made it...bad art.
The subtext became text, and instead of an adventure with layers, it became a preachy sermon.
It's like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer seasons four and six: the difference between the elements of witchcraft and vampirism as a stand in for sex and then witchcraft as an actual drug and actual S&M sex standing for sex. It's still a drama, but it's bad speculative fiction.
Harry Potter is wonderful as fantasy and speculative fiction, but it doesn't stand up as a pure drama. Much too preachy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A person growing up in a homophobic society would assume they were homosexual if they felt and admitted to a same-sex attraction.
Isn't that what's happened here? An unrequited crush as a teenager and Dumbledore is being spoken of as if he were actively homosexual all his life?
Getting crushes as a teenager on your friends is a very normal part of adolescent development, and it DOESN'T necessarily mean that someone is gay. This revelation and the reaction to it does more to encourage that attitude than any "homophobic society"'s practices.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't that what's happened here? An unrequited crush as a teenager and Dumbledore is being spoken of as if he were actively homosexual all his life?
Not fair. What happened here is that Rowling, who created this fictional character, said he was gay. Then she added that he had an unrequited love affair with Grindelwald.
We aren't talking about a real person here who actually had an adolescence development. We are talking about a fictional character who was created by an author. He is what she created him to be, nothing more nothing less.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:He is what she created him to be, nothing more nothing less.
He is whatever the reader imagines him to be, nothing more nothing less. (Of course the reader can choose to allow his or her imagination to be influenced by Rowling's comments.)
quote:Another awfully good British author, the late Douglas Adams of the successful Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy series, confronted a comparable question a few years back. One of his fans asked about the kind of computer one of his characters used. He replied, in part:
"The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number for you. It doesn't exist."
I'd disagree with that a bit. It does exist – in the minds of any reader who wants it to exist.
posted
"St. Joseph's pastor, the Rev. Ron Barker, removed the [Harry Potter] books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school."
Odd coincidence in how he allowed children to read those books before Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay, and banned them afterwards.
Speaking of which, should Rowling have outed Dumbledore when his public(published)behaviour gave no indication of homosexuality? To me, the situation very much feels like a confidante gossiping about secrets shared by a friend.
quote:Odd coincidence in how he allowed children to read those books before Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay, and banned them afterwards.
The article is dated today, October, 25.
quote:But last month, students found that their favorite series had "disapparated" from the school library, after St. Joseph's pastor, the Rev. Ron Barker, removed the books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school.
That means the latest he removed the books was September 30.
JKR made the announcement on October 19, according to CNN.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is sort of an aside, but does the Catholic church actually have a doctrinal position on witchcraft? That is, do they believe that is such thing as a real witch who can cast spells, summon demons and such?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Dagonee, that slipped past me. Or rather I scanned/interpreted "last month" as meaning the same as "this past month".
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I asked my kids if they had heard this this morning. In the course of the ensuing conversation, my daughter asked why Dumbledore didn't use a time turner and avoid the fight wherein his sister was killed. I said either he didn't have one, or maybe time turners can't avert death. What do you all think?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure that time turners only give you a window of a few hours. Still, that doesn't explain why they wouldn't use a time turner to avoid almost every other major death mentioned in the series.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't that go against the theme of the story? Death, accepting death, not being a wuss about dying like Voldermort, plus in book three they talkeda bout the importance of not messing around with time.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In fiction, everyone talks about the importance of not messing around with time. And then they always mess around with time, except when it would make the most sense.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Star Trek, especially TNG, has that problem in spades. A full third of each episode is wasted explaining why in this unique situation they cannot user their magical technology.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While Firefly generally drew its drama from setting up situations where someone was going to do something they typically wouldn't. I think it would have eventually gotten old, at which point they could have just had some romantic tension break now and then.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is part of why I liked Babylon 5. There was exactly *one* time travel event, framed in such a way that it would be very difficult to repeat. However, that one event ended up showing up in three episodes two years apart, and had repercussions years ahead and thousands of years back which remained pretty much consistent. Given the pressures and time constraints of TV production, I thought that was truly remarkable.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "messing around with time," is that if you can travel into the past and change anything you want, then that makes you able to change everything bad in the universe, so you become morally responsible for anything bad you do not change. Being morally responsbile for everything bad in the universe is too heavy a burden. You would spend all the rest of your life trying to cease being a villain.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The problem with "messing around with time," is that if you can travel into the past and change anything you want, then that makes you able to change everything bad in the universe, so you become morally responsible for anything bad you do not change. Being morally responsbile for everything bad in the universe is too heavy a burden. You would spend all the rest of your life trying to cease being a villain.
There's all the butterfly effect problems too. Go back and kill Hitler and some other wacko with less ego and greater skills actually pulls off what Hitler failed to accomplish.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Besides, time turners only work if you actually use them, it seems to me. Once a bad thing has happened, you already haven't used the Time Turner to go back and fix it, so you can't use a Time Turner to go back and fix it.
At least that is the vibe I get.
Posts: 910 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fyfe, the way I look at it, in order to travel back in time, you first have to step outside of time, thus disconnecting you from the cause and effect that used to define your life. So you could kill your grandfather before he sired any children, and it would have no effect on you; you have become your own cause and effect. You could also go out and back in and try to fix something bad as many times as needed. The fact that you hold the Time Turner in your hand is the only cause and effect that matters.
What I like about this theory is that it allows a vast number of time travel stories to be possible. And you don't have to worry about a recursive plot. (I never did like recursive logic; it can be a real pain in C programming.)
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's amazing (though not surprising) that this thread has 5 pages. If JKR had mentioned Dumbledore's sexuality in the last book, this is how much debate and argument there would have been. Therefore, it's definitely better that she didn't. Too bad we live in a world where the idea of homosexuality makes people so prickly and defensive that we have to concentrate on it for such an incredible amount of time.
Maybe what JKR should have done was to have Rita Skeeter come out with a rumor that Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald, so that when she (Rowling) revealed later that it was in fact true, it wouldn't have been so shocking to some people... Though this too probably would have caused undue amounts of argument when readers should instead have been concentrating on Harry's problems.
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book.
Is anybody else wondering how exactly a love AFFAIR can be unrequited? I mean, it creates a lot of funny mental images of a voyeur Dumbledore, but I don't think that's what Rowling meant.
Tara: Well, if I'm not mistaken, Skeeter DOES make comments about Dumbledore's "inappropriate" relationship with Harry. Maybe it was a hint.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rowling has made more recent remarks on the matter (posted down the page over at Mugglenet.com) ...apparently she -does- feel Dumbledore's support of Grindlewald was largely influenced by his unrequited infatuation.
Somehow, that disappoints me.
I find a Dumbledore tempted to do evil "for the greater good" far more interesting than "crushin' like crazy" Albus. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, we have the author herself saying (in her view) that it was very much the latter. She goes on to say that children will understand it was just a great friendship, but that she hopes "perceptive" adults will get the infatuation clues.
See, I didn't notice the "crush" clues until she said they were clues. I'm not perceptive! Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this sort of announcement makes me question the politics involved. Perhaps I'm illustrating a bias on my part, but it reminds me somewhat of Ultimate X-Men, where the writers made Colossus homosexual. I wasn't surprised that they included a gay character-statistically speaking, chances are in a very liberal culture (such as a progressive mutant school), at least one member would be openly homosexual. The part that was strange was that it was Colossus. The biggest, strongest, manliest man perhaps aside from Wolverine was made gay.
I couldn't help but wonder if they weren't trying to send a message of some sort (particularly later when one of the only openly religious figures in X-Men to my knowledge, Nightcrawler, was made into a disgusting homophobe).
This revelation by Rowling makes me wonder the same thing, mostly because it's so very abrupt and most particularly not in the story at all. I also question it because, instead of writing it into a later story focused on Dumbledore, she tells us now, outside of her writings entirely.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read this thread through, so forgive me if i'm repeating.
I feel that this... proclamation, is 1. Insignificant to the story and 2. Just a ploy to sell more books and encourage an eternity of English teachers to egg their students on the easter egg hunt to find allusions to D's homosexuality while they read the Harry Potter books.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
