Dumbledore is Gay

[mormont]

You know, I'm thinking of passing on the details of some of the posters in this thread to the Parapsychology department at Edinburgh uni. They've spent thirty years looking for people who can read minds, and here we are with a whole string of people who can do it, admittedly only with JK Rowling.

I think if JKR says the character was intended to be gay all along, you have to accept her at her word unless there is some compelling reason not to. She is the author, after all. And there is some support for the idea that this is not something she cooked up on the spot.

This is dumb as shit. GRRM has not revealed in interviews something of this order of magnitude that wasn't in the books.

What order of magnitude? Now, I haven't read the books, but so far as I am aware Dumbledore does not enter into any kind of relationship, gay or straight. So for this to be of an 'order of magnititude', you must be claiming that a person's sexuality deeply affects their characterisation in other ways that are relevant to the plot, yes? In fact, a number of people (Calibandar was another, I think) are claiming this. But I can't see it. Look at Renly and Loras, for example. How does their being homosexual affect the story, outside of their relationship? Minimally, if at all.

So, let's hear some examples of how Dumbledore's sexuality could possibly have affected the plot in a significant way, that do not involve him being in a relationship.

I mean, I have friends who're gay, or bisexual, and outside of that preference and some occasional prejudice from others, it's never struck me as being a key facet of their personality. It doesn't affect whether they're good at what they do, whether they're kind or cruel or wise or foolish, how they view the world. Why should it? To suggest that it does is verging on stereotyping, IMO anyway.

[Maia]

I'm going to present a highly unpopular opinion. My favourite book out of the series was Order of the Phoenix. I found it the most humorous, and though there are many, many flaws (such as being over-bloated with details) I thorougly enjoyed it.

Ditto, followed by book 3. The weakest books are IMHO DH and CoS. It was OoTP that actually got me interested in the series - I read previous books just to keep abreast of the media phenomenon, but with this installment I saw a chance for an actual story amid that sea of unbridled wish-fulfillment, protagonist hero worship and quickly tiring "whimsy". It also retroactively improved PoA. Unfortunately, all the hints of a possibly interesting and not totally clichéd story in OoTP turned out to be dead-ends . But if all those things ended up being significant, we wouldn't talk about it being "bloated" now...

I have to agree that while it is legitimate for an author to give out additional details in an interview or correspondence, things should be decently foreshadowed or alluded to in the text. IMHO, DD's sexuality wasn't. People made some guesses, yes, but only because DD was in such a vacuum of relationships, which seemed somewhat incongruous for a man who supposedly valued love so highly. If it was Sirius whom she outed, OTOH, I would have no objections as there was more than enough evidence that could be interpreted in this way. Of course, it would make his feelings about Harry even more problematic, so she won't go there.

[Red Sun]

Some readers thought Neville and Luna made a cute couple because they saw something there (I didn't). The ghastly epilogue was very unclear on who Neville and Luna and Draco eventually ended up with, and it really should have been left to fanfics and readers to decide.

I never really get this point, even though she said it in the interview, nobody can be forced to read the books that way. Sure, once her announced encyclopedia is published, the canon might be more defined, but every reader can still read the book with his/her own mind. That's why subtext is fun. And that's why people can even discuss about books and have different opinions.

[Calibandar]

Mormont

So, let's hear some examples of how Dumbledore's sexuality could possibly have affected the plot in a significant way, that do not involve him being in a relationship.

I have to admit to some confusion here Mormont. Apparantly you live in a world where books are all about plot. They do not have a setting, atmosphere, characterization and must all be written in the same writing style. Because apparantly, if an aspect of something is not directly related to the story's plot, it is irrelevant.

In my world, books have characterization. My Fantasy books have an aspect of worldbuilding, setting, and interpersonal relationships. Now, such things would be influenced by a signficant aspect of someone's personality, say their sexuality. I think something like Dumbledore being gay should have been mentioned, Rowling had plenty of time for for it in the seven huge tomes she wrote. But it's possible that it was an afterthought. It also possible, and the interview here confirms at least that suspicion, that she felt Dumbledore was gay all along, but was afraid to actually say so, for whatever reason.

And it is also possible that she always thought he was gay, but never thought to put that into the story. And I do agree with you in that if she nows says she always thought of Dumbledore as gay, we have to take her word for that. I certainly accept that Dumbledore was gay, now that she has said it.

Point is, I think Dumbledore being gay is an aspect of his character that I think should have been explored if you are going to later on confirm that he was indeed gay. Explored in the books. Because it is part of who he is. Not because it would have directly impacted the plot in any way. But then books and the characters in it are not solely defined by plot, in fact there are quite a few books which are virtually plotless.

I mean, I have friends who're gay, or bisexual, and outside of that preference and some occasional prejudice from others, it's never struck me as being a key facet of their personality.

We have to disagree here too, because from my experience, it does. I'm not going to ignore the fact that being gay is an important aspect of what someone is, and I say that it does influence someone's personality, who that person is, and does so significantly.

[Mad Queen]

When I read this at first I just laughed, but now I think it makes a lot of sense. I'm convinced that Rowling had always thought of Dumbledore as gay. He was always eccentric and flamboyant, which fits the gay stereotype, but more importantly, he stood for minorities: muggleborns, werewolves, half giants... Doesn't it make a lot of sense? I'm thinking Dumbledore was VERY gay now.

[delete this account pls]

Whoa! Never picked up on that one!

Well I'm not saying he is definitely gay, but his devotion to James seemed a little over the top for friends. It seemed more like Sirius had an unrequited crush, to me.

[Zulofritter]

You guys have changed my mind. JK had a good gambit here.

I haven't read all the books yet, but it's clear that they're all getting made into movies aimed at kids. Now consider that each movie contains a gay character (I'm sure Dumbledore survives to the end), but there are no hints within the movies that the character is gay. Makes it damn difficult for anyone to protest these movies based on content.

And if fans get annoyed over an interview, that's gravy.

[Maltaran]

Cali, I think we have to remember here that the books are all told from Harry's POV. Is there any reason why he'd think about Dumbledore's sexuality? I know when I was at school, I never had any reason to wonder about the sexuality of my teachers, except for the one who was very camp.

[Calibandar]

Well, that's true.

[The Pita]

You guys have changed my mind. JK had a good gambit here.

I haven't read all the books yet, but it's clear that they're all getting made into movies aimed at kids. Now consider that each movie contains a gay character (I'm sure Dumbledore survives to the end), but there are no hints within the movies that the character is gay. Makes it damn difficult for anyone to protest these movies based on content.

And if fans get annoyed over an interview, that's gravy.

I really hope youre kidding.

And I can protest the movies based on content not because of the gay bit, but that's for another thread in another forum.

And JK did not have a good gambit. She had an easy way to make the group of fans that read interviews feel special about themselves for knowing things other fans don't know.

I am so gonna get flamed for that point.

[mormont]

I have to admit to some confusion here Mormont. Apparantly you live in a world where books are all about plot. They do not have a setting, atmosphere, characterization and must all be written in the same writing style. Because apparantly, if an aspect of something is not directly related to the story's plot, it is irrelevant.

Need some more straw to stuff that straw man with?

JKR is saying that being gay has all along been part of the character of Dumbledore, so that deals with characterisation. I really don't see how the issue affects the setting, except inasmuch as it affects the level of realism, which is really the same thing as 'atmosphere'. And the atmosphere of the books is arguably not really affected by the revelation.

Which is why I suggested that an example of it affecting the plot might be useful, not because that's the only thing that matters but because it's the area where it might be expected to have the biggest impact, so it's easiest for you to find an example.

But hey: don't feel constrained. Please feel free to point out how Dumbledore's sexuality would change any aspect of the books, other than his romantic life. Your post fails to mention any. All it does is reiterate your claim that it matters, without giving any examples or explanations of why. Do you feel it affects Dumbledore's role as a mentor? Do you think it makes him a better headmaster? Does it affect how he relates to Snape, or to Harry?

Like I say, I haven't read the books, so I can't really say one way or the other. But you're making a claim that it is important to the books, and I'd like some sort of example to illustrate that.

We have to disagree here too, because from my experience, it does. I'm not going to ignore the fact that being gay is an important aspect of what someone is, and I say that it does influence someone's personality, who that person is, and does so significantly.

Again, this is something of a straw man. Of course someone's sexuality is an important aspect of what they are. I never claimed otherwise. I am questioning whether and how that one aspect affects their personality in ways that aren't related to their romantic life. How does being gay make you different, other than in who you choose to sleep with?

[davos]

I would have an issue with a a revelation about a charcter made in this manner under two circumstances: 1. The books would have had scenes where the charcter's sexuality should have been reveled given that it was relevant to the scene or 2. it contridicted information given in the texts.

there was not a scene Dumbledore's sexaulity should have been revealed and was not. Most of the books are told through Harry's pov. there was never really a point where it would have been natural to discuss his sexual orientation. Frankly DD was a very private individual and it would not have been like him to discuss the matter unless it was necassary to do so. Since it was not it makes far more sense that he never mentioned it. The parts of the story that discuss Grinewald and Dumbledore's relationship are told from other's pov, primarily through Rita Skeeter's book. It makes sense that she would not have uncovered that element of their relationship (and frankly we don't know the wizard world's attitude towards homosexuality so we don't know if she had found out if it would have been regarded as scandalous or not). Its quite possible that no-one else may have known the nature of their relationship.

It also does not contridict anything within the texts. There is not indication that DD had intimate relationships with women that now saying he's gay would require JKR to work around. In fact its generally supported by the text, though never explicitly. It in fact fills in a few blanks and explains somethings rather nicely. Many fans have in fact come to condlude the DD is gay from the texts anyway.

As with GRRM and some other fantasy authors, Rowling has created a lot of background material that may have informed the texts at points but never made it in simple because it never really made sense for it to. Its quite possible it was something she always new though and used to help shape her presentation of DD's character. Now a fan explicitly asks her about his sexuality and she shares the information. Nothing wrong with that.

[Smeik]

IMHO the problem lies in the last book in which JKR tried to give a background story for Dumbledore but obviously didn't go in such depth to give some proper hints for such an crucial (in terms of characterization) information. It seems like she saw that these gaps existed but wasn't able to fill them in the book and tries instead to make up for this in the interviews.

[Bronn Stone]

Like a lot of people, I was left thinking What. The. Fuck. after I read Neville and Hannah shacked up. In another interview I remember Rowling said something along the lines of Luna marrying a dude not mentioned once in the fucking series. My respect for Rowling as an author plummeted afterwards.

This is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, the wrap up of HP included too few of these. How many people in our world marry someone they meet after the age of seventeen? Most?? Almost all??? It isn't like Bill Weasley didn't meet his future bride afterward his stint at Hogwarts. And other characters as well. Luna being an extremely minor character who barely intereacted with her classmates in her early years at school makes this even more consistent - she was a late-bloomer in almost all social relationships.

While Rowling probably could have hinted a bit more strongly in Deathly Hallows, I don't see her decision not to do so as being terribly inconsistent or inappropriate.

[Shryke]

This is absolutely ridiculous. If anything, the wrap up of HP included too few of these. How many people in our world marry someone they meet after the age of seventeen? Most?? Almost all??? It isn't like Bill Weasley didn't meet his future bride afterward his stint at Hogwarts. And other characters as well. Luna being an extremely minor character who barely intereacted with her classmates in her early years at school makes this even more consistent - she was a late-bloomer in almost all social relationships.

While Rowling probably could have hinted a bit more strongly in Deathly Hallows, I don't see her decision not to do so as being terribly inconsistent or inappropriate.

The thing is, your talking about a VERY small community here. The entirety of Britain's Wizarding community went to 1 school! Shit man, your looking at about, what, 50-60 kids in each year, tops. The chances of you meeting your future bride at Hogwarts are really high because, well, there isn't much else. This is a very small, tight knit community. Where personal connections are very important, because it's so small.

[Mossman]

Not only is there no textual suggestion of Dumbledore being gay in the books, there is no textual suggestion of homosexuality at all that I can recall.

Half-serious response:

In Half Blood Prince, when visiting Slughorn, Dumbledore comments that he stayed so long in the bathroom because he was reading the muggle's magazines. "I do so love knitting patterns." I thought he was being a smart-ass, but maybe she was trying to drop a stereotypical hint?

[gyrehead]

Rowling seems to want to have her rainbow flag cake and eat it to. Ironically her admission seems in part an attempt to drape herself in the flag of egalitarianism; yet instead she pretty much reveals that the best paid living imagination is nothing more than a huge giant closet. Sure she left the door open so Dumbledore wasn't techinically "hiding in the closet". You just had to move all those brooms, wands, sorting hats and other paraphernalia to even get a glimpse.

And funny that Rowling seems to think it something worthy as opposed to silly that she has to explain that she has a homosexual character. Yet never once had to clarify the hetereosexuality of any of her straight characters. In fact we had the sexual preferences of many characters, far less integral to the story than Dumbledore, who with a look or a sigh indicated clearly where their jonses-ing interests lie. Or an outright statement. Cheap theatrics it seems to me on Rowling's part. And a bit too eager to interfere with the readers' experience. Maybe she'll decide next time to get her attention by driving drunk or adopting a third world baby. Instead of retroactively tinkering with something at, book 5 on, should have been tinkered with before it hit the shelves. Not after.

[duchess of malfi]

I have a lot of coworkers who read Potter, and we have talked extensively about the books as each has come out.

Every single one of us thougth DD was gay after DH came out. We all thought he had some sort of romance/relationship going on with that guy he was going to travel through Europe with (minor character whose name escapes me).

Combine that with not a single hint of any other romance in his life up until DH and it sure made him look gay to all of us.

[Bronn Stone]

The thing is, your talking about a VERY small community here. The entirety of Britain's Wizarding community went to 1 school! Shit man, your looking at about, what, 50-60 kids in each year, tops. The chances of you meeting your future bride at Hogwarts are really high because, well, there isn't much else. This is a very small, tight knit community. Where personal connections are very important, because it's so small.

If Luna married a) someone her own age and someone British, this might be true. I see no reason to assume either.

Hogwart's is referred to on a number of occasions as the 'best Wizarding school in Britain'. This implies that there are other less prestigious ones, even if they make no appearance.

[MeanMrMustard]

What order of magnitude? Now, I haven't read the books, but so far as I am aware Dumbledore does not enter into any kind of relationship, gay or straight. So for this to be of an 'order of magnititude', you must be claiming that a person's sexuality deeply affects their characterisation in other ways that are relevant to the plot, yes?

I have read the books, unfortunately. It is certainly reasonable to assume that his homosexuality had a serious impact on his life (and his life was a major subject of the series). So, yeah, you're just kind of wrong.

"Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald [a bad wizard he defeated long ago], and that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent, but he met someone as brilliant as he was and, rather like Bellatrix, he was very drawn to this brilliant person and horribly, terribly let down by him."