Dumbledore is Gay

[Crazydog7]

"Oh, my god," Rowling concluded with a laugh, "the fan fiction."

Took the words right out of my mouth.

That still doesn't match all that Fred and George stuff for sheer skincrawling horror.

[Eponine]

I'm not at all surprised, I thought that the Dumbledore/Grindle-what's-his-name relationship hinted at homosexuality.

I don't care one way or the other that Rowling brought it out now after the books were finished, but I will say that I think it would be hard for her to have written in a scene that clearly showed Dumbledore being homosexual without being too explicit in the limited framework he was given.

Think about how subtle the attraction between Ron & Hermione started- they didn't even kiss until the last book, and they had 7 books to get to that point. Dumbledore & Grindlewald had maybe 20 pages. I don't believe that Harry and Cho ever did more than kiss, and Harry's thoughts about Ginny were never very explicit, and it's mostly from his POV! It seemed that Dumbledore was nervous about his relationship with Grindlewald not least because of Grindlewald's extreme beliefs, so it would seem rather out of place for him to suddenly make an obvious move or a declaration of romantic attraction within the brief explanation we were given about the relationship.

[potsherds]

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.

Point well taken.

[Lord Mord]

Crazydog,

That still doesn't match all that Fred and George stuff for sheer skincrawling horror.

What Fred and George stuff? As in, putting the two of them together sexually? What's so horrific about that? The fact that it's so hackneyed, you mean?

[Angalin]

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.

Or when a teacher was having an affair with one of the students. Still, thinking about your teachers having sex was almost as bad as thinking about your parents having sex: did not want to know.

I think of Sirius as rock-star-ishly bisexual, with his feelings for James as the only constant. And as for thinking about that ancient relic Dumbledore having sex... even when he was still young and improbably (that beard!) delicious... I'll take a pass, thanks. It was better not having it explicitly laid out in the text. "Had a good shag with Grindy, that sexy beast! Too bad my sister got killed during one of our rows. No time for make-up sex during the funeral preparations."

[Zahir al Daoud]

I just think Dumbledore's orientation wasn't particularly important to the story. It is one more detail out of many that the fans (including yours truly) are glad to have but is simply not vital to the tale.

Rowling told the story she wanted to tell. It wasn't about the gayness of the headmaster and that detail didn't make it onto the written page. So what? It isn't necessary that every single gay character in every popular piece of fiction have their sexuality show up center stage--or even ON-stage, for that matter.

[Intercept]

I didn't even see the hints that he was gay. Then again, I had no idea Renly and Loras were gay until I read George RR Martin confirming a fan suspicion, and I caught it on my reread.

I think people are being critically unfair of her though. It's not like she held that press conference just to say he was gay. She was answering questions and that's the answer she gave.

Anyone remember the show Gargoyles on Fox? With the whole Arthurian mythology wrapped around it, with Goliath, Broadway, Bronx, etc. Lexington is gay. I saw absolutely zero hints about it in the show, and really thinking about it I don't think there were any to begin with because it'd be a little risky on a children's show, but Greg Weisman talked about it in a con when discussing the future of the Gargoyles characters and the franchise. I don't think anyone would've bashed him for trying to steal spotlight or get media attention.

But obviously Harry Potter is way more popular than Gargoyles, hence, the media attention it receives.

[DJDonegal]

I only just heard about JKR saying this, and I haven't read the whole thread.

Massive copout by JKR. She was taking criticism for not having any homsexual characters in her book and then, post-series, declares one of them to be gay when there are no clues to point to definitively in an effort to support this new character angle. If Dumbledore being gay was an issue she wanted to point out in the book, she would have made obvious allusions to it being so. If it was not something she wanted people to think about, then this announcement strikes me as a mere attempt to appease some of her critics rather than anything else.

[TerraPrime]

Re: Eponine R

I don't care one way or the other that Rowling brought it out now after the books were finished, but I will say that I think it would be hard for her to have written in a scene that clearly showed Dumbledore being homosexual without being too explicit in the limited framework he was given.

Really? I don't know why revealing that a character is gay has to involve "explicit" material, by which I presume you mean sexually explicit?

I can see, say, in book 6 when Harry was visiting Dumbledore's old memory and having the info dump afterwards that Dumbledore could have left an oblique statement (like he tends to), something like

"Do not judge her (voldie's mom) too harshly for killing herself. I can tell you that love can often lead us into blindspots." Maybe Harry was imagining it, but he thought he detected some sadness in Dumbledore's voice when he said that.

"Well what do you mean Professor?" asked Harry.

"Oh look at the time! You should go back to your room!"

Re: Zahir

Rowling told the story she wanted to tell. It wasn't about the gayness of the headmaster and that detail didn't make it onto the written page. So what? It isn't necessary that every single gay character in every popular piece of fiction have their sexuality show up center stage--or even ON-stage, for that matter.

It's a false assumption to say that revealing a character's homosexuality is the same as making it the book "about" that character's sexuality. How many heterosexual orientation have we been informed about and how many made it as a central plot point? One can reveal the information without turning it into a defining theme of the work.

Also, it isn't necessary that every single gay character should have their sexuality revealed, true. But in the context of Rowling's work, none was, and here we were told that a major character was gay and that piece of information somehow never found its way into the text despite a pretty extensive examination of his character. That's incongruent. Rowling herself admitted that the decision to withold that information from the text was at least in part based on fear of what the fans/publishers/media will make of that information, so it was not a clear-cut decision made because the author felt the story needs it. The fact that she had that characterization planned would argue that she did feel that it's something that needed to be fleshed out, in fact.

[Maia]

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.

Perhaps, but Harry being in danger and learning that he'd have to fight Voldy according to the prophecy didn't react like a child of normal intelligence would, in his situation. Maybe children don't mature all-round faster in trying situations, but they are certainly capable of pursuing a goal for years or training themselves for expected dangers. That Harry did absolutely nothing to prepare himself for his trials, that he continued to laze around, freeload and play Quidditch when he knew what awaited him makes look like a moron. Not to mention that his complete ignorance of and lack of desire to learn about the magical world makes him look rather dim-witted - as again that's crucial for his survival and that of his friends. Consequently, his dangers had to be dumbed down so far that one has to wonder whether the wizarding world shouldn't darwinate out if it needed his assistance at all .

That's the problem of trying to unite an "everyman" stereotype lacking superpowers or even particular skills with that of the "prophesied hero" who battles big bad mano y mano at every opportunity. There was strain from the beginning, but it was easier to overlook while Harry was very young and the books were more children-oriented.

Re: kids in command, naval midshipmen in the 18th-19th centuries would join at 12-14 and in a couple of years they would be expected to command men, even in battle. In fact, my cursory search revealed a guy who commanded a sloop-of-war at 17. And a lot of junior army officers at the same time started at 15-16 as well.

Re: Dumbledore, Skeeter absolutely would have mentioned his sexual orientation in her piece, so "Harry's POV" defense doesn't carry any weight.

[Zahir al Daoud]

I wouldn't build my argument using the ability of Rita Skeeter to discern the truth as a building-block.

I stand by my previous post. Rowling told the story she wanted to tell. Lots of interesting details--in her judgment--did not belong "on stage." Having thoroughly enjoyed her books, I don't feel like second-guessing her nor harping on her failure to live up to an agenda other than telling her story the way she wanted.

All sorts of things weren't explored in the Harry Potter books. Religion seems noticeably absent, which seems to me a shame, but I accept her decisions not to delve into that area.

[Jerol]

It seems to me debating whether or not the subtext in the book supports it, or charges that the author is either fucking with the canon or making this up for more publicity is just a geek wankfest. What is important that the most popular genre author in the world has just told millions upon millions of kids that the fatherly character they looked up to is gay and it's OK that he is gay. This might not be a huge deal in Europe but here in US it is HUGE. The wingnuts were pissed at JKR before, now they're just going to go off the deep end. Buttsecks drives the evangelical fringe totally ballistic. And then you have the closeted self-loathing contingent: Senator Larry Craig, Mark Foley, the Reverend Haggard... This is enormous and the repercussions are going to be very interesting.

[ser marauder]

I didn't see any hints that Dumbledore is/was gay. I also think that to reveal his sexuality afte rthe series is complete is cheap and amatuerish. If she imagined him as gay she should have made it clear in 1 of the 7 books not in an interview! It just looks like she's trying to keep interest in the series to me. Plus, his sexuality has no plot significance at all. This reveal in no way changes the story to me. That's why I view it as a cheap publicity stunt.

[Maia]

I wouldn't build my argument using the ability of Rita Skeeter to discern the truth as a building-block.

I was merely pointing out that if Rowling wanted to introduce that fact about Dumbledore _in_ the books, she had a perfect vehicle to do so. One not hampered by Harry's POV. And I do think that the way she handled it was cheap.

[The Pita]

I have a funny story to tell, told to me by a friend of mine.

When she was 10, she sent a letter to JK asking her why everyone in HP was Christian, and why there weren't any jews there. She believed in HP, by the way.

And on her 11th birthday, she got a note, in green ink, signed to her from JK.

And it said something along these lines:

"Thank you for sending JK Rowling your note. However, due to the quantity of letters recieved each day, she cannot answer your letter."

Something like that.

But longer.

[kas]

I only just heard about JKR saying this, and I haven't read the whole thread.

Massive copout by JKR. She was taking criticism for not having any homsexual characters in her book and then, post-series, declares one of them to be gay when there are no clues to point to definitively in an effort to support this new character angle. If Dumbledore being gay was an issue she wanted to point out in the book, she would have made obvious allusions to it being so. If it was not something she wanted people to think about, then this announcement strikes me as a mere attempt to appease some of her critics rather than anything else.

Pretty much how I feel. To me it seems like she had two choices 1) release TDH with better clues to Dumbledores sexuality (she still doesn't have to come right out and say it, but the blurbs people have referenced in this thread are pretty paltry) and let the readers come to this realization. This causes the problem though of pissing off many conservatives and causing quite the controversy over the release, or 2) acknowledge his sexuality after the publication and sweeping sales of the book (still alienate future readers probably, but it doesn't cast a shadow over the release of her final HP book).

Obviously of these two scenarios she went with the latter. Of course there could be more to the story, but I don't think so. I think she was too timid to write anything too revealing about Dumbledore than she already did. As a gay man who always wondered why a homosexual character was never mentioned in her "diverse" little world, this is a major copout to me. But still, if she is telling the truth and she has always thought of Dumbledore as gay, then I guess I still need to be happy she at least told us...eventually

[gyrehead]

It seems to me debating whether or not the subtext in the book supports it, or charges that the author is either fucking with the canon or making this up for more publicity is just a geek wankfest. What is important that the most popular genre author in the world has just told millions upon millions of kids that the fatherly character they looked up to is gay and it's OK that he is gay. This might not be a huge deal in Europe but here in US it is HUGE. The wingnuts were pissed at JKR before, now they're just going to go off the deep end. Buttsecks drives the evangelical fringe totally ballistic. And then you have the closeted self-loathing contingent: Senator Larry Craig, Mark Foley, the Reverend Haggard... This is enormous and the repercussions are going to be very interesting.

Actually the way she did it didn't really "tell" millions upon millions of children. Sure it will trickle down and out. But most kids I know who love the series don't watch the news. Don't subscribe to Time or the The Times or have CNN.com as their home page.

It is nice to think she has taken a strike against homophobia and intolerance and is this wonderful crusader, but frankly I don't see it. PArticularly since it isn't even in the mainstram news as much I suspect Rowling hoped. Ironically the mixture of the mainstream media being uneasy about broaching homosexuality in a children's book and the fact that the real world decided to impinge in some serious ways at the same time, finds Rowling's wondrous message of acceptance receiving less than earthshaking response. There seems to be a few loud cases of outrage but for the most part, other than online, I have seen it received in much a less sensationalist manner.

Had Rowling really wanted to reach millions upon millions? She could have actually written a gay character. Maybe next time she'll feel brave enough to. In the meantime, I'm thankful other authors writing for the young adult manner are not so repressed and fearful despite having a smidgen of Rowling's wealth and might.

[IheartTesla]

Once again, Terra has articulated everything I wanted to say much better than I could ever say it (at least regarding JKRs decision re: Dumbledore), so I will just put a big

[Zulofritter]

To the aspiring authors out there;

Leave nothing to the imagination. When designing your plot and characters, don't mess around with background material and outlines. Throw it all on the page.

And after the book is written, try not to talk about the plot and characters you spent so much time living with. Optimally, talking about your writing should bore you.

[oneeye]

Whatever happened to having your story, you know, tell your story, as opposed to interviews? When you have to tell detailed accounts of the characters of your series in an interview, something is wrong, me thinks (such as her continuation of the epilogue, providing the futures of characters that the epilogue didn't concern).

Oh well.

well the series is over and she's just big enough to do it.