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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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--"

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hasn't she made enough?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.