Dumbledore is Gay...Is This Really Necessary? Your Thoughts...

[randomkid]

Saw this today on the online news.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2052004020071020?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=1

I just feel like this is a feeble attempt to keep focus on the Harry Potter series now that the last book has been released. I think as long as movies are coming out, people will be interested. In fiction, I feel that this is one of those things that readers should decide for themselves. I don't want the author telling me something like this about a character. Sexual orientation didn't even enter my mind (with any of the characters) when I read the books. That's not what the storyline is about, IMHO!

What do you think of this?

[trumansmom]

It doesn't change the book for me at all. And although I spent zero time thinking about with whom Dumbledore got his jollies, it kind of feels right and makes sense to me.

But honestly, just as in real life, I don't care.

Jeanne
Mom to Truman 11/01 and Eleanor 4/04

[tarabenet]

I just saw that too. We knew all about the sexual orientation of many of the other characters, being hormonal teens and all. It happens that all Rowling presented us were the hetero couples, but she did put in a lot about their sexuality (not their sexual acts, but their attractions and all that). I was getting pretty annoyed with the whole "awkward teenage love" stuff, really, before the series was done. I think it is a shame that the straight characters were able to be open, but a key figure who happened to be gay had to keep that aspect hidden. I hadn't thought about Dumbledore's sexuality. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about anyone's, frankly. But Rowling's statement that "Falling in love can blind us" actually helps me understand a lot of Dumbledore's behavior regarding Grindewalt. I think it makes the picture more complete and a lot more convincing.

I think it is a shame she "knew" this about her character and couldn't share it with the rest of us until now. It speaks volumes about our socity's tolerance, that an author riding an unprecedented crest of popularity wasn't willing to expressly include that information in the series. Apparently she believed that sharing that information with us all would diminish the love and respect fans held for the Dumbledore character. That makes me sad. If a fictional character loses face for being outted, how can our fellow real humans ever trust us all with their true selves?

[SnuggleBuggles]

I don't think of it as a way to keep attention on the books...but I do find it unnecessary to talk about his preferences. It doesn't change anything and I never once even thought about it. :)

I saw the headline today and thought, "yeah, so what?" But, I guess there are people out there that just want to know absolutely everything about every character. I guess it's nice that Rowling has thought through all those nuances of her characters and she is alive to end speculation.

That's my incoherent rambling!

Beth

[SnuggleBuggles]

"But Rowling's statement that "Falling in love can blind us" actually helps me understand a lot of Dumbledore's behavior regarding Grindewalt. I think it makes the picture more complete and a lot more convincing."

I agree that that did add a bit to that story line.

Good insights in the rest of your post as well. :)

Beth

[randomkid]

>But Rowling's statement that
>"Falling in love can blind us" actually helps me understand a
>lot of Dumbledore's behavior regarding Grindewalt. I think it
>makes the picture more complete and a lot more convincing.

That does make sense, but when I read the book, I just thought of Dumbledore as a young, inexperienced and excited wizard who went down the wrong path for a while. It never really occurred to me that he was "in love" with Grindewalt. That just seems kind of silly to me. Not the sexual orientation part of it, but the whole concept just seems a little lame.


>I think it is a shame she "knew" this about her character and
>couldn't share it with the rest of us until now. It speaks
>volumes about our socity's tolerance, that an author riding an
>unprecedented crest of popularity wasn't willing to expressly
>include that information in the series.

I don't know if I believe that she "knew" this about Dumbledore as to me, it seems like an afterthought (hence my statement above about it being lame). Apparently, there are fans who have speculated about Dumbledore being gay and I think she is just trying to make them happy. Maybe not, but it just doesn't seem like it was truly part of the character's development. I guess that's what bothers me about it. Almost the opposite of what you said, that society pressured her into "outing" a character that was never really meant to be gay. Just my 2 cents.

>Apparently she
>believed that sharing that information with us all would
>diminish the love and respect fans held for the Dumbledore
>character. That makes me sad. If a fictional character loses
>face for being outted, how can our fellow real humans ever
>trust us all with their true selves?

If she truly believed this, why would she choose to "out" him now or at all? Besides, I think some things in fiction are better left to the imagination. I feel it's up to the reader to decide what they believe about a character. Isn't that what literature is all about?

[michellep]

I guess I don't see what the big deal is about this one piece of information.

Rowling is known for giving out back-story details about her characters at these types of events. Look at the Today Show interview she gave right after the book's release for example. Some of her fans really crave this info, and it's a detail she didn't want contradicted in the movies so felt the need to clarify. So I guess on that one point, an author wanting the movies to be true to her vision in the books, yes I do think it was necessary.

-M

[kristenk]

It doesn't really matter to me one way or the other, but I think it makes sense.

I don't think it's an attempt to keep attention on HP. It would be one thing if she announced the info in some sort of press release, but this was just in response to someone's question. It makes sense that she'd know add'l info about her characters.

[maestramommy]

I'm with you Kim. I just don't see why this is even relevant.

[katydid1971]

I have a problem with her telling us about the characters outside of the books. I was very dissapointed with the last chapter then she says in interviews later what jobs, etc, the characters have. I also felt she wasted a lot of time just hanging out in the tent in the last book. I think she should have included these character details in the book instead of writing in long drawn out detail about what food they were able to find. I prefer having pictures in my mind about books and having the author tell me the details she thinks are important in the book not later on good morning america or something. I don't care if Dumbledore is gay but if she felt it was important she should have included it in the book like Snape's love for Harry's mom. OK I'm rambling but it bothers me that I have to keep watching the internet for new details about the book after I have finished it.
Sarah

[kijip]

I don't see why it is irrelevant. Frankly, if the backstory was that McGonagall and Dumbledore were lovers or that Dumbledore married and was widowed early in life, I doubt very seriously that people would claim it to be unnecessary or irrelevant. Heterosexualism is alive and well in the claims that this is pointless to share. I do think it colors the Grinelwald relationship a little better. And why Dumbledore took his merry time in confronting him. I don't think it is an attempt to keep the books in the spotlight (she does not need that!), a lot of fans have a genuine interest in the backstory of the characters.

What I sort of expect now is all the HP-is-the-devil's-work-one-earth peeps latching onto this to recolor his close connection to Harry. I get a headache just thinking about my more colorful very conservative minded conspiracy theorist relatives yammering on about it and it being further proof the books are bad. Off to go block some of their emails addresses and phone numbers...

[ciaobella]

I agree that it adds color to the Dumbledore and Grinewald relationship and I wish that she would have been more up front in the books. It would not have changed how I felt about Dumbledore one bit. I just find it odd that she would reveal this fact now. I agree that sometimes the back stories frustrate me because I have created my own version in my imagination.

[randomkid]

My point exactly! You were able to convey it much better than I could. I showed my teenage stepdaughters the article and they were very disappointed. They have read these books since they were quite young and have had their own ideas of who Dumbledore is and what his motivations were. My youngest said, "Well, that just ruined all the books for me." My oldest said, "What about all those little kids that want to read the books. Now, someone will tell them Dumbledore is gay."

Maybe for adults this isn't a big deal (I don't really care if Dumbledore is gay, but what's the point of it now?), but what about all the younger fans out there. You know they will hear about this and I am totally with Sarah that if JKR felt it was important, she should have put it in the book.

[B.A.F.]

I haven't read the books, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents anyway. A lot of our population is gay and there are many kids who know they are gay but do not share this right away, and I think having a central character in such a popular series of books will really help these kids feel a connection, and maybe feel positive and more confident about being gay. Maybe you can share that perspective with your step daughters to help them see a positive in this new information?

[kransden]

Let's be honest shall we? If she put the fact Dumbledore was gay in the book. There would have been an uproar in certain sections of the population. Some libraries would have banned it etc. etc. etc. This way causes the least amount problems. I applaud her practicality. It also makes complete sense. Dumbledore's actions seemed odd, but not after you realize he was in love with the guy.

Karin and Katie 10/24/02

[Fairy]

I love this. Doesn't bother me in the least. Explains a whole lot; things with Grindelwald and the wand that were a little "hmm" now going "click."

I haven't seen the fan fic, but from my Star Trek fandom experience, i can only IMAGINE what's out there . . .

[rlu]

Just wanted to point out that the Potter books as a series are challenge/banned anyway. Not sure that adding homosexuality would have made a significant increase in challenges.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#1990topresent

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=bbwlinks&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=85714

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=why+ban+harry+potter&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

[kijip]

>My point exactly! You were able to convey it much better
>than I could. I showed my teenage stepdaughters the article
>and they were very disappointed. They have read these books
>since they were quite young and have had their own ideas of
>who Dumbledore is and what his motivations were. My youngest
>said, "Well, that just ruined all the books for me." My
>oldest said, "What about all those little kids that want to
>read the books. Now, someone will tell them Dumbledore is
>gay."

Why would Dumbledore being gay stop/discourage little kids from reading the book? I am genuinely confused by that. Gay people make up around 10% of the population. Most people know what gender they are attracted to at an early age, around the time kids would start reading a book like HP anyways. I knew I liked boys around age 9 or so, my brother knew his identity from a very young age and my gay friends knew they were gay *no later* than age 12 or so.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I think Rowling is too invested in the characters to make it up after the fact.


****Rocking out while parenting my smart little 4 year old munchkin Toby.
The butter melts out of habit, you know the toast isn't even warm. -Ani DiFranco

[Happy 2B mommy]

Personally, I think if JKR edited a movie script to keep Dumbledore as she envisioned him, it was going to come out anyway. I'd rather that it come from her.

Some friends had speculated over Dumbledore's sexual orientation and when I read the 7th book, I did suspect that D's feelings for GG went beyond friendship. Would I have seen it if my friends hadn't suggested D was gay? Probably not, but once it was suggested to me, I thought that it was pretty strongly hinted at.

Once of the themes in the HP books is that love for another person is the greatest, strongest magic there is. I always found it ironic that none of the professors at Hogwarts were married. Not to suggest that they are all gay, but rather that circumstances have caused these gifted witches and wizards to somehow lose out on that particular magic...

Just my thoughts.

[B.A.F.]

A woman on another board wrote this:

I was not shocked, it actually makes sense - "smitten with grindelwald".

Apparently that line was in one of the books.

[michellep]

>Why would Dumbledore being gay stop/discourage little kids
>from reading the book? I am genuinely confused by that.

Confused here as well...

[randomkid]

Just giving you a teenager's point of view. I have nothing against gay people and it is very prevelant where we live. I'm not saying that kids won't know and we can debate this as adults forever. The point is, young people view things differently and feel differently than we do. I wasn't giving my opinion, but just making the point that I think it's sad to do something like this after the fact. Young people are far more imaginative than adults and they don't want their vision of a character defined after the fact, that's all I was saying here.

ETA: I think what my stepDD meant was that younger kids should be able to have their own idea about who Dumbledore is by reading the books. Just like she did - not to have it told to them when the thought probably never even occurred to them, does this make sense? I'm not being contrary, just giving a kid's viewpoint. My stepDDs are not intolerant, they have gay friends. They just want to make up their own mind about a character.

[elliput]

It's J.K. Rowling's universe. She can do whatever she wants with it.

I am currently re-reading the series and am half way through The Goblet of Fire (year 4), knowing Dumbledore is gay is adding a more intimate understanding of his personality.

[masha12]

Here are my thoughts.

First, Dumbledore's sexual orientation is never discussed in the book, and I view the series as "standing on its own." JKR can give me all the back-story she wants, but if it isn't in the book, its irrelevant and "unknown" as far as I'm concerned.

Second, I think the whole thing about D being gay undermines male friendships. When I read book 7, it never occurred to me that D and G were some sort of romantic relationship; I viewed it as a close male friendship based on a mutual interest in ancient magical objects. And that is all that discussed in the book about their friendship.

Saying that D is gay and had some sort of "more than friendship" relationship with G sends the wrong message that two men cannot be close friends without it being sexual. We need to be fostering healthy male friendships in young boys, not sending the message that if two men are close friends they must be gay.

Finally, as a teaching moment, I find the D & G relationship more valuable as a platonic friendship gone bad rather than a romantic relationship gone bad. When my kids are old enough to read the books, they will be at an appropriate age to discuss friendship choices and D & G's story would provide a good context for that discussion. I don't think my kids will be old enough at the time they read it for a discussion on abusive boyfriends.

[Fairy]

Ya know, for me, as an actor, backstory is terribly important. It gives motivation for a scene and how you play the scene. It helps you find the place from which you're going to emote. Without backstory, it's all surface and means nothing. Even if you have to make up the backstory yourself, you've gotta have one. I kind of feel the same way about books -- any story, really -- that has a mythology to it. Understanding a character wholistically only makes you that much more a part of the fabric of their story. So, for me, understanding that Dumbledore is gay made things crystal clear where before there was a bit of murkiness. JK is ridiculously detailed in her characters. She knows where they were born, who their children are, etc., even if we don't. That's what makes her such a rich writer. She wrote a character that happened to be gay, even if she didn't state it in an obvious manner. That it's come out later is fine by me.

As for healthy male relationships, I definitely see the primary male relationship in the book, Harry and Ron, as a healthy male relationship that has nothing to do with romantic love.

Anyway, I'm a big lover of backstory. I'm also a sick puppy for commentary tracks on DVDs. I mean big time whore for the comentary track. One of my favorites is on Sense & Sensibility. Mmmm, so good. Oh! Also, Joss's commentary track on the Buffy musical, "Once More with Feeling." Oh, I could go on and on and on.

[megs4413]

when i saw this on another site my first thought was, "hmm. makes sense." i had wondered about dumbledore's relationship with G. that whole thing makes more sense now and explains a lot about D's motivations and actions.

and those that thing it isn't a big deal, might not realize how this affects GAY people. having such a beloved character in such an epic book (and movie) series turn out to be gay is a big, big deal.

i keep reading and re-reading some of the books (my faves are 5 and 6) and i keep "learning" things about the characters that i never paid attention to at first. it's a great series, though i don't think i'd let my young reader read it because it can be a bit scary at points.

[maestramommy]

Okay, after reading the discussion on the subject, I'm beginning to think maybe it's not so irrelevant. I mean, it's irrelevant to me enjoying the books (haven't read the last one yet, so I guess this is a bit of a spoiler for me!), but one of these days I'll go back and read them all over again; maybe knowing about all these things will make me see the stories and characters differently.

[randomkid]

>Ya know, for me, as an actor, backstory is terribly
>important. It gives motivation for a scene and how you play
>the scene. It helps you find the place from which you're going
>to emote. Without backstory, it's all surface and means
>nothing. Even if you have to make up the backstory yourself,
>you've gotta have one.

This has been my point exactly. Yes, backstory is very important, and when it isn't provided in the book, you make up your own. The fact that many readers have made up their own backstory, then to have JK come out and change it for them is what bothers me about this "post release" announcement.