mormont Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 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. *shrugs* It wouldn't be the first time, but I'm not the one making a claim, so it's difficult to be 'wrong'. I'm asking for examples of how Dumbledore's homosexuality would have been so hugely important to the books. Presumably the above is meant to be one? In which case I will leave it to people who know more about the books to comment on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 But the whole thing is told from Harry's point of view. And he, as the 7th book points out, really knows fuck all about Dumbledore's life. Or the man himself. We know pretty much zero personal information about him, and we only get that tiny bit after their both dead. And that's not exactly strange. He's always been half father figure, half doting teacher to Harry. It's not the kind of relationship that involves alot of sharing of personal information from the teacher to the student. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanMrMustard Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 The Dumbledore/Grindenwald relationship was examined in the final book. It's kind of absurd to leave out the aspect of romantic love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the silent speaker Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 kind of like years and years down the track, some fan asks GRRM who, lets just say Arya, marries, and he says she married a Philip McDonald. I'd go "huh?". But Arya's a POV character, which means ASOIAF is about Arya, in a way Harry Potter isn't about Neville or Luna. A better analogy would be if GRRM let out that Robb married, I don't know, some chick named Jeyne Westerling who's never turned up in the series before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Romin Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 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. Being a homosexual surely would have influenced DD's personality and behaviour, however, I don't really see a need for the text to explicitly say he is gay. I've not read the books, however from what I've heard/seen of the final book it strongly implies that DD is gay. That should be enough. As far as I am concerned that is an appropriate way to reveal that type of information about a mysterious character. It's alot better than if in the middle of the series during some lecture DD burst out "Ya me and my old boyfriend are like totally fighting right now." It's like a character in some random series I just made up whose body is completely covered and then in the final book someone is reminiscing about the character and mentions a time they shook his hand and it was "burned" or "black" or "very pale, like an albino" or "brown" or "purple". Surely this would've influenced their character but it didn't really need to be something to be further explored in the novels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeanMrMustard Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I've not read the books, however from what I've heard/seen of the final book it strongly implies that DD is gay. That should be enough. 1. You haven't read the books. 2. No, it isn't implied. The books don't contradict Rowling's statement, but that's not the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I can't believe this has generated so many responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Monkey Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 A topic? About Harry Potter? Attracting responses?! I am personally and deeply shocked. The only thing that would be more surprising would be finding out that a few people on this board do not particularly care for the Terry Goodkind series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guarneri Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 "It's from Harry's PoV!" has always seemed to me the lamest excuse of the series. Yes, a lot of it is, but there are also PoVs from different characters, and it being limited to a child's PoV doesn't restrict subtle hints. Hell, GRRM pulled off hints and subtle details with child PoVs that are below Harry's age (though 'tis arguable if Bran is more mature than Harry, seeing as Harry is quite frankly an idiot). Sure, you can say it was Rowling's intention to have an incompetent and stupid teenager be her main PoV, but when ALL her characters are incompetent or more or less idiotic, it makes one wonder if it's not the writer's choice so much as a reflection that the writer isn't physically capable of intellect and maturity in her artform. Ding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Re: Zahir Actually, I suspected Dumbledore might have been gay after reading Deathly Hallows. But there are lots and lots and lots of details that simply cannot be put into the story. Snape's love of Lilly was an essential plot point. Dumbledore's sexual preference was not. But that's by writer's fiat only, not dictated by the logical progression of the plot. It's fitting to have a counter-balance for the theme of the book if Dumbledore had committed mistakes out of love. It will serve as a contrast to the overall theme, i.e., the power of love to conquer all. It's Rowling's world, and she can put whatever theme she wants into it. It will also add to explaining Dumbledore's forbearance of Riddle when Riddle was still at Hogwart's, i.e. Dumbledore saw something of Grindenwald in Riddle. It's obvious that she didn't want to get into that aspect of love, the destructive/misleading part, but it doesn't mean, imo, that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindenwald had no role to play in the story. Again, she's the author and she has control over the story, but I think she passed up on an element in her story that could have enhanced the overall work. Re: MMM The Dumbledore/Grindenwald relationship was examined in the final book. It's kind of absurd to leave out the aspect of romantic love. I agree. Depending on how Rowling makes the wizarding world react to homosexuality, she can either have Rita Skeeta add that as a slam against Dumbledore, or she can have the wizard who wrote the eulogy reveal that piece of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myrddin Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 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. THis was my thought as well. Harry is too self involved to think about his teachers' personal lives. No mention is made of McGonagol's sexualiy either. Or any teach except for Snape, which as has been mentioned, was a plot point. Think about when you were in high school: Did you sit around and think about the sexual orienation of your teachers unless there was some reason to do so? Except for the hot Math teacher you fantasied about of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guarneri Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 If I was having the same teachers for seven years I think a kind of relationship between them would build. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 "It's from Harry's PoV!" has always seemed to me the lamest excuse of the series. Yes, a lot of it is, but there are also PoVs from different characters, and it being limited to a child's PoV doesn't restrict subtle hints. Hell, GRRM pulled off hints and subtle details with child PoVs that are below Harry's age (though 'tis arguable if Bran is more mature than Harry, seeing as Harry is quite frankly an idiot). Sure, you can say it was Rowling's intention to have an incompetent and stupid teenager be her main PoV, but when ALL her characters are incompetent or more or less idiotic, it makes one wonder if it's not the writer's choice so much as a reflection that the writer isn't physically capable of intellect and maturity in her artform. I have very different opinions about this. One of the few things I don't like about ASOIAF is that Bran's viewpoint chapters show him to be unrealistically mature for his age. And I think Rowling does a very good job of depicting her characters acting like typical kids of their ages throughout the series. I don't find Harry's behavior to be any more "stupid and incompetent" than the average teenager's, frankly. He's no more egocentric, hotheaded, or clueless than the average high school boys I've known. I think JKR's characters are much more realistic in terms of how they act at their stated ages than GRRM's child characters are. And I've heard GRRM himself say he doesn't really like writing from a child's viewpoint. I think it shows in the Bran chapters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All-for-Joffrey Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I have very different opinions about this. One of the few things I don't like about ASOIAF is that Bran's viewpoint chapters show him to be unrealistically mature for his age. And I think Rowling does a very good job of depicting her characters acting like typical kids of their ages throughout the series. I don't find Harry's behavior to be any more "stupid and incompetent" than the average teenager's, frankly. He's no more egocentric, hotheaded, or clueless than the average high school boys I've known. I think JKR's characters are much more realistic in terms of how they act at their stated ages than GRRM's child characters are. And I've heard GRRM himself say he doesn't really like writing from a child's viewpoint. I think it shows in the Bran chapters. GRRM's characters live in a very different world, so they have to mature more quickly. That said, I don't think Bran's supposed maturity is irreasonable, in fact I think he is pretty immature at times as would befit someone of his age. In much of AGOT and ACOK he acts like a spoiled brat, granted, this is largely due because he doesn't understand the magnitude of what is going on and because he's been crippled for life, so those are pretty good reasons for his behavior but they're still immature nontheless. He kind of snaps out of it in ASOS but that's probably due to the fact that he's had to mature since he has to flee everything he knows and go journey into the unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satchel Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 2. No, it isn't implied. The books don't contradict Rowling's statement, but that's not the same thing. I dunno about that. I came away from Deathly Hallows with the distinct impression that there was a lot more going on between Grindelwald/Dumbledore and also Doge/Dumbledore than just friendship. In fact, I was convinced that Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald showed very clear signs of being a romantic infatuation, not just with Grindelwald's ideas but also the boy himself. Doge's affection for Dumbledore could not have been clearer. There is also an element of camp and whimsy about Dumbledore's character right from the very start: "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" for example. And as others have noted, Dumbledore always had an enormous sympathy for the oddballs and minorities. In all, I think Rowling put a whole lot into the books that imply that Dumbledore is gay. I also don't know where she could have put such a revelation explicitly in the text without it landing with a thud. We get most of our insight into Dumbledore through Harry, and none of their conversations dealt with Harry's love life - the most logical place for Rowling to reveal that aspect of Dumbledore. Obviously, Rowling could have done it differently, and one could argue that she should have (I'd disagree but that's opinion only), but I don't think it's fair to say that she didn't lay the groundwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I don't find Harry's behavior to be any more "stupid and incompetent" than the average teenager's, frankly. He's no more egocentric, hotheaded, or clueless than the average high school boys I've known. Except that he isn't an "average teenager". He has been a target since age 11. And since book 5 he knew that he had to fight Voldy or be killed by him. I am sorry, but for a kid in such a situation his behavior has been unbelievably retarded. People his age at that point have been fighting in wars and even commanding units throughout history. I think JKR's characters are much more realistic in terms of how they act at their stated ages than GRRM's child characters are. Now, I am not sure about Bran, but GRRM's other child characters are realistic enough for their situations, IMHO. We can't view such things in isolation from the setting. Children can grow up quicker in certain respects if they have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 No ones saying she couldn't have added it in. I just don't find it at all surprising that it never comes up. It's not like she had to fudge the story or anything to make it work. And while the DD/GW relationship may have been mentioned in the final book, I don't see how the intimate details are gonna get to Harry. Teachers are not gonna start spilling out their love lives to their students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nex Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I prefer not to read about such pieces of information outside of the books, thank you very much. The books themselves are supposed to be self contained. JKR has an annoying tendency to create canon in interviews rather than within her body of work. Quoted for truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SquireThomas Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 A topic? About Harry Potter? Attracting responses?! I am personally and deeply shocked. The only thing that would be more surprising would be finding out that a few people on this board do not particularly care for the Terry Goodkind series. C'mon, don't be ridiculous. Surely everyone realizes that Terry is the apex of modern fantasy writing? Oh, that's right, I forgot, he doesn't right fantasy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Except that he isn't an "average teenager". He has been a target since age 11. And since book 5 he knew that he had to fight Voldy or be killed by him. I am sorry, but for a kid in such a situation his behavior has been unbelievably retarded. People his age at that point have been fighting in wars and even commanding units throughout history. Now, I am not sure about Bran, but GRRM's other child characters are realistic enough for their situations, IMHO. We can't view such things in isolation from the setting. Children can grow up quicker in certain respects if they have to. I disagree. I think the idea that people automatically "grow up faster" because they are in dangerous situations is a fallacy. There are many aspects of maturity that have to do with the physical maturation of the brain and just can't be "speeded up" by putting a child in "adult" situations. And where do you get the idea that 17 year olds have been "commanding units" throughout history? I have no doubt that one can find isolated examples of that, but I seriously doubt that has ever been a NORMAL situation in any historical army. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.