The latest from Hogwart's....

[ozron]

http://my.earthlink.net/article/ent?guid=20071019/47182bc0_3421_13345200710191585503927

Quick quote:

NEW YORK - Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.

My daughter was once heavily into fan fiction. This is going to make her day!

ron

[JWBear]

Good for her!

[Disneyphile]

AWESOME!! :snap:

[GusGus]

Funny, he doesn't look gayish.

[BarTopDancer]

Hopefully it will open some minds.

And to those I don't like it - boofrellingwho. Your kid isn't going to become gay because Dumbledore is.

[Disneyphile]

Who wants to bet there will be some church book burnings over this? ;)

[JWBear]

Please! Most of the parents who would have a meltdown over this already don't let their kids read it (Evil occult, and all that).

(ETA: I was responding to BTD. DP snuck in there!)

[Tref]

Hmm, I don't buy it. I have not read Harry Potter, but if its not in the book, then it doesn't count, even if she's the author. This is a fictional character that only exists within the confines of said book(s) and anything else is an after-thought.

[Morrigoon]

I just don't get the point of "outing" a character where it isn't relevant to the story. I suppose she's doing it to make a point, but it's still kinda strange.

I mean, she said she wasn't writing any more books, so it's not like we get to see Dumbledore getting it on with Snape or anything.

[Alex]

Well, that explains why he and Ron were snogging so often.

[CoasterMatt]

I thought we spotted Dumbledore at the Mutaytor show on Thursday

[Gemini Cricket]

Oops. I didn't see this thread.
:D

Y'all can delete the thread I started.

[Gemini Cricket]

I just don't get the point of "outing" a character where it isn't relevant to the story. I suppose she's doing it to make a point, but it's still kinda strange.

I mean, she said she wasn't writing any more books, so it's not like we get to see Dumbledore getting it on with Snape or anything.
I don't see any problem with it. Especially with the upcoming encyclopedia she's putting together.
I think it's relevant to the story. His love affair with whathisface was a motivating tragedy in his life.

[Chernabog]

I just don't get the point of "outing" a character where it isn't relevant to the story. I suppose she's doing it to make a point, but it's still kinda strange.

I mean, she said she wasn't writing any more books, so it's not like we get to see Dumbledore getting it on with Snape or anything.

In the article it goes on to explain how (in her mind) he was in love with Grindlewald, and provides a little background for the character.

She DID say she may write another Harry Potter book, but it would be more of the encyclopedia variety, and perhaps this revelation will become "canon" via that book. However, in other Q&A sessions Rowling has answered questions about the fates (or backgrounds) of characters (i.e. who did Luna Lovegood marry?, etc.), and people have taken those answers as "canon" in the past. Nobody asked what the point of that was when it wasn't relevant to the story.

Perhaps it would have been better if she had said that in her INTERPRETATION of the works, Dumbledore was gay, or that's what she had in mind when she was writing, but it is up to the reader to decide. Lots of authors and filmmakers do that when discussing their work (see, for instance "Rebel Without a Cause"). Kids these days like to be spoon fed things, however...

[Strangler Lewis]

I think this allows her to expand on her universe without putting controversial things in her books that might not be appropriate for all ages. At her next lecture she'll tell us that, of course, Harry and Hermione slept together in book seven while Ron was gone and that everyone is miserable in their marriages because Harry and Hermione really loved each other but were too cowardly to do anything about it-he out of fear of poisoning their friendship; she, out of some self-destructive sense of responsibility that Harry had a higher destiny.

But enough of that. I'm not entirely convinced that her description of Dumbledore's gay life is terribly affirming. The one time he gave into love was his great tragedy? Was he celibate since? Did he bugger Tom Riddle? I'm always suspicious when people speak of "tolerance," and I'm as suspicious about this as I am about the obviously Jewish goblins that ran Gringott's.

[innerSpaceman]

Did I read the article incorrectly?

It sounded if she were goofing on fan fiction, not making some realization of her own. She spouted off about Dumbledore and Grindy's love, and then went, "Pffft, fan fiction!" or something to that effect.


So I think everyone's making much ado about nothing. Because I think it was just a riff on Rowling's part.





That said, if there's a gay Dumbledore, I'd rather take a tumble for the Michael Gambon version rather than the Richard Harris. (living and dead irregardless)

[Strangler Lewis]

That would be plausible except that it said she sent a note to the book six director to correct a suggestion to the contrary.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

SL has a good point.

Also, if you read the book, I think it makes sense. It's pretty strong subtext in the book, and it makes the events that happened between Dumbledore and Gridelwald more plausible to me. (It reminds me, in fact, of an abusive relationship I was once in, where my feelings for someone made me turn a blind eye to cruelties dealt, to others or to myself.)

[Kevy Baby]

My only comment on this is: who cares? Dumbledore's sexuality has zero impact on the story line. Why is this even a topic of discussion?

[innerSpaceman]

Um, not so Kevy. If he and Grindlebutt were lovers, that makes a rather large impact on the Dumbledore history that was a LARGE element of the FINAL Harry Potter novel.





Not as big an element as, say, if it were actually in the book ....

[figment1986]

So they put out a shock factor after the series ends.. i see no issue, not like its going to change the story for those who read it before... just give people another reason to re-read it with this implication.

[innerSpaceman]

This and others. Because we all know if he's a gay professor who pays special attention to Harry Potter ... well, there are wands involved.


Must.Be.So.


Gay older wizard with young students in his charge = pedosorcery

[Kevy Baby]

This and others. Because we all know if he's a gay professor who pays special attention to Harry Potter ... well, there are wands involved.

Must.Be.So.

Gay older wizard with young students in his charge = pedosorcerySee, this to me is why it should be a non-issue. While I suspect that you are kidding in your post, there will be others (not on this board) who will immediately make the assumption that if Dumbledore is gay, he must of course be sexually interested in Potter (a minor through the entire series) because well if he is into one kind of "deviance" (homosexuality) then he must be a complete deviant (being interested in young boys and who knows what else).

I still maintain that whether he is gay or not has little to no impact on the story line. Even if there was a relationship with Grin-whatever (I forget his name) is romantic in nature, it does not affect the story one way or the other. Had Rowling included more detail on their relationship in the narrative in book 7, it would not (in my mind at least) not deserved any more discussion (and a separate thread) than any other minor plot points.

I guess I come from the school of thought that the more one highlights the differences, the longer it takes for society to stop making prejudices against said different people.

[innerSpaceman]

And I come from the school of thought that says when it's recognized that quite a few of the most talented, respected, lauded and beloved persons, fictional or un, are homosexual .... the sooner people will stop thinking of it as "deviant."

[Nephythys]

Oh yes- on "other boards" it was said that he would have a sexual interest in Harry- immediately denounced as bigotry and small mindedness.

I honestly do not care though I did get the feeling this was possible when I read the last book-

Though I do question in this day and age why men can not be friends, like brothers- and love each other without people assuming they are gay. It's like the discrimination has shifted the othert direction.

[Not Afraid]

It was announced he is gay, not a pederast.

[Alex]

And it is the view of many that sexual interest in 15-17 year old boys isn't really pedarasty. Why this very board has been home to sexual comment and innuendo (gay and straight) about both the characters and the actors playing them.

That is not to say, of course, that homosexuality and interest in older teenagers go hand in hand. I think general experience among the general population (an average is what I'm talking about here) is that it is common among both orientations. And harboring the thoughts and doing anything about them are two completely different thoughts.

I'd say it is just as likely that a straight Dumbledore had the occasional erotic thought about Hermione as that a gay Dumbledore did the same about Ron (I ignore Harry since I can't imagine why anybody would have any attraction at all towards such an ininteresting character).

[Nephythys]

It was announced he is gay, not a pederast.

Clearly- I did not make the observation but it was made elsewhere.

Not too surprising though-someone would have to go there- in jest or in earnest.

[Gn2Dlnd]

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/10_03/CharlieThomas1SWNS_468x455.jpg

A rare picture of a young Dumbledore trying to budge child Hagrid towards the breakfast table. They say the relationship only blossomed after Hagrid came of age, Dumbledore eventually breaking it off with gifts of a pink umbrella and a hut.

[Gemini Cricket]

No gay headmaster would let his owlery get that filthy...

[Alex]

From Neil Gaiman's blog (http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2007/10/flowers-of-romance.html), some interesting comments on what an author knows about the characters versus what makes it onto the page.

[lashbear]

Ah, did Grindlewald and Dumbledore have their own little affairette ?? That explains all those visits to Brokeback Magical Academy.

...Ah wish ah knew how to kwit yew, Dumbledore.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

...and the Force comes from midichlorians.......Not.

Making stuff up later is lame, no matter what the "fact" is. I reject anything non-book, same as I reject anything non-SW Trilogy, and anything beyond the first Matrix.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, perhaps if there'd been a gap. But J.K.'s been writing the books pretty much non-stop for a decade .... and if she's going to have an encyclopedia out within a reasonable period of time ... anything in it is going to be the "truth" of the Potter universe.


Hey, I don't like that they all married their high school sweethearts, but that's what happened ... and I can't just claim the Epilogue didn't happen because I hated it.



Based on an interview, no, Dumbledore's not gay. But if he's queer in the encyclopedia, then the HeadMaster of Hogwarts is a Homo.

[Nephythys]

...and it's appropos to nothing.

Nothing in the Potter universe even hints at the differing sexualities of it's denizens- nothing. Is Dumbledore the sole gay man? (outside of Grindlewald obviously) making them even more unique and outside than anyone else?

The rest of the characters are very straight- with no hint of anything else anywhere in the books- no incidental character or mention anywhere.

The adults in the books are also not discussed in those terms with any real depth outside of Snape's love for Lily. Hagrid has a brief flirtation with the Headmistress of Beauxbatons- but otherwise they are by and large asexual in their descriptions.

I personally don't care either way- gay or not he is still the character he always was- but I find the "revelation" to be mostly meaningless. Are we going to have an expose on the sexuality of all the main characters?

If anything this marginalizes him and his history by making this part of him a small side note after thought tossed out at a Q&A- it does not mainstream him as it is clear he is on the outside in his world as well.

[innerSpaceman]

Exactly. It relates only to his affair with Grindlewald. And nothing else.


If Dumbledore is gay, then his love life is the only thing effected by that.




And yeah, the stories were "told" from the points of view of young children. The adults were seen primarily as eunichs, but a little less so as the kids got older. That's not to say the adults really were asexual.

An encyclopedia unrelated to a kiddie storytelling perspective should reveal all sorts of interesting things about all sorts of characters.

[Gemini Cricket]

I found this editorial to be an interesting take on the outing of Dumbledore. Part of me agrees.
When J.K. Rowling announced at Carnegie Hall that Albus Dumbdledore—her Aslan, her Gandalf, her Yoda—was gay, the crowd apparently sat in silence for a few seconds and then burst into wild applause. I'm still sitting in silence. Dumbledore himself never saw fit to come out of the closet before dying in book six. And I feel a bit like I did when we learned too much about Mark Foley and Larry Craig: You are not quite the role model I'd hoped for as a gay man.
Source (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674550-1,00.html)

[innerSpaceman]

Oh, do people come out as "straight?"


Perhaps the entire staff knew he was gay. Maybe everyone at the ministry of magic was in the know. But the student body was under the policy of enforced ignorance of the sex lives of the teaching staff.




Perhaps.

[Prudence]

I can understand an author envisioning her characters to have certain backgrounds and characteristics, even if those characteristics aren't necessarily seen in the books. And I can understand an author telling a screenwriter not to include something that contradicts that vision. If I had created the character of Dumbledore and in my mind Dumbledore was gay and that shaped my development of the character, even if it was never mentioned in the books, I'd not want some screenwriter inventing a girlfriend.

Still, what's the big fuss? Who cares? It wasn't relevant to the books and, unless there's now some new gay sex scene added to the screenplay it won't be relevant to the movies, either. It's a fictional character whose romantic life isn't part of the stories.

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Here's some more fuel for the fire as seen on MSNBC (http://pageoneq.com/news/2007/Right_wing_media_watchdog_on_disclosure_that_Dumbl edore_i_1024.html).
Be sure to watch the video clip at the bottom of that article. :evil:

[Disneyphile]

I have to give that reporter credit for keeping a mostly straight face. I would have been laughing the whole time!

I love though how the guy claims that this could lead to "boys experimenting" and "getting STDs". :rolleyes: Aw. Parents might actually have to parent their kids.

[JWBear]

And we know that straight kids never experiment or get STDs! :rolleyes:

[Disneyphile]

And we know that straight kids never experiment or get STDs! :rolleyes:Of course not! ;)

Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. Unfortunately, I think this guy is one of their leaders.

[Strangler Lewis]

One can imagine the sex talk:

1) Accio! 2) Petrificus totalus! 3) Expelliarmus!

4) (Yawn) Reducto.

[JWBear]

LOL!

[lashbear]

One can imagine the sex talk:

1) Accio! 2) Petrificus totalus! 3) Expelliarmus!

4) (Yawn) Reducto.

Now now now... can't have a Reducto without an Engorgio first.... :blush:

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, this story got a blurb on the cover of Time Magazine this week. Sheesh.

[lashbear]

But that's good!! The more Friends Of Dorothy (real or fictional) we get on the cover of TIME, the better !!

[innerSpaceman]

Well, of course, the Time piece (which had been circling the internet for a week or more) rips Dumbledore (and J.K.) a new one for having simply stayed in the closet the entire series.

[lashbear]

Oh.

*goes off to google said article*

[Gemini Cricket]

Don't ask, don't spell.

:D

[innerSpaceman]

Hehehe, but really ... I guess for all intents and purposes, J.K. had him stay in the (witches) broom closet. But Dumbledore may not have. Just because he wasn't out to the students, doesn't mean he wasn't out to his friends and colleagues. Perhaps it was misguided of him not to come out to Harry - - maybe due to lame fears of impropriety and making the lad nervous when they had all those private pensieve lessons together in Harry's 6th year.

It had nothing to do with the story being told, but I kinda get that J.K. was a little lame for not having Dumbledore come out ... when his orientation and matter-of-fact proudness of same could have been an inspiration to millions of young teens.

As an author, she likely had more of a duty to tell the proper tale than to have political considerations ... but I think it can be argued that she let a large part of her public down by revealing this incourageously late.

[Gemini Cricket]

I also seem to remember Rita Skeeter talking about Dumbledore's "dark" past and that his close relationship with Harry was disturbing. Or something like that.
Interesting... Damn that Rita Skeeter...
:D

[mousepod]

There's an article about it in today's NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?_r=1&ref=books&oref=slogin

[Gemini Cricket]

From mousepod's article above.
“Coming next week,” a newspaper article on Skeeter promises, “the shocking story of the flawed genius considered by many to be the greatest wizard of his generation.” Skeeter drops teasing hints about Dumbledore’s “murky past,” about his not being “exactly broad-minded” and suggests that in his mentoring of Harry there is an “unnatural interest,” something “unhealthy, even sinister.” As for the idea that Ms. Rowling suggested — that as a teenage prodigy, Dumbledore had a homoerotic infatuation with another prodigious young wizard, Grindelwald (who later went over to what in “Star Wars” is called the Dark Side) — Skeeter hints at this in coded allusions.

[Chernabog]

Poor JK Rowling, damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. Plenty of artists give their own interpretation of their work as well as disclose what they had in mind when they created the work itself. It IS extraneous to the story that she thought Dumbledore was gay when she wrote about him, so she didn't include it.

She's already inspired millions of kids to read books, leave her alone that she didn't explicitly help gays in the work itself too. Screw the politicial considerations. Or should we force the backgrounds of fictional characters out into the open if those backgrounds serve a hot-button topic? That's total crap.

Furthermore I don't bemoan every missed opportunity in popular fictional works that could further an agenda. Not knowing that Professor Trelawney had an abortion, Professor Snape used aerosol cans on his greasy hair, or that the Malfoys fed Dobby meth in their dungeon neither detracts from the work itself nor means that Rowling should be derided in the decision to leave those things out of it.

[Chernabog]

From mousepod's article above.

How totally obnoxious. I guess if you're TRYING to read everything thru pink triangle glasses, you'll come up with crap like that quote above.

[Gemini Cricket]

How totally obnoxious. I guess if you're TRYING to read everything thru pink triangle glasses, you'll come up with crap like that quote above.
Rita Skeeter is a character from the books. We're supposed to hate her.
:D

[Gn2Dlnd]

Ha ha! I laugh at my roommate!

I also laugh at the idea of Dobby being a crack-elf.

[Chernabog]

Rita Skeeter is a character from the books. We're supposed to hate her.
:D

Yes, but are we now NECESSARILY supposed to interpret her comments as "she was referring to the fact that Dumbedore was a gay homosexual"? I certainly didn't interpret it that way when reading it.

It seems that there are a myriad of web discussions who are picking apart every "hint" that may possibly in some way be interpreted as "Dumbledore was gay."

(i.e. this quote from the same article: "She proposes that when the two friends had a falling out in a dramatic duel, Grindelwald did not fight but “conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and” — the passage then gives way to an obvious (in retrospect) sexual double entendre." Oh, isn't it so OBVIOUS now in retrospect? How could we all have been so blind? There's gay gay gay written all over Dumbledore!

Doing that isn't an INVALID reading of the HP books, but it isn't a NECESSARY reading either. That NYT article conveys that idea well.

However, I don't think Rowling went "too far" though in outing Dumbledore, like the NYT article says. I don't think she's ever said "Dumbledore is gay and if you don't think so from reading Harry Potter then you're wrong".

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm wondering if this is more a matter of people reading into what she said.
She said she saw him as gay. Well, great. Nothing wrong with that.
She doesn't need to prove it nor does she need to justify her comment. She's the author. It is what it is.

That's how I look at it. I'm laughing at all the brouhaha. In the end, does it really matter? No.
:)

[Gn2Dlnd]

I'm laughing at all the brouhaha.

A brouhaha ha-ha?

[innerSpaceman]

Actually, now that the Rita Skeeter smeer attempt is brought to my attention, I retract what I said about Rowling's not bringing Dumbledore's orientation into the series. She did. Through nasty inuendo.

Certainly others could have interpreted that smeer differently, but I recall interpreting it as an allegation that Albus was a queer perve.

Frankly, since Rowling put that out there ... I think it was kinda beholden on her to set the record straight (heheh) that Dumbledore being gay does not mean he's a perve out to engorgio his male students.


I'm not gonna boycott her Universal Theme Park land or anything, but the Skeeter thing leaves me leaning towards my opion that she should have outted him.

[Chernabog]

A brouhaha ha-ha?

Yes guys, he does do stuff like this at home too. *bonks the Cheeto on the head*

[wendybeth]

I think it's really much ado about nothing. Besides addressing the 'snogging' that adolescents do, the author does not really go into the sexual orientation of any of the adults, excepting the married and soon to be married ones. It's a detail, nothing more, and the day that details such as one's sexuality are just that- not some huge, earth-shattering scandalous revelation- that means we have all gone beyond mere tolerance* to acceptance and inclusion. It is only relevant in that Grindlewold's betrayal was absolutely devastating to Dumbledore, and his later actions were a reflection of his anguish. I think we lose sight that this is a series written for adolescents and we adults just got to go along for the ride.


*'Tolerance' annoys the **** out of me- it implies that something is unpleasant but must be tolerated.

[innerSpaceman]

Sorry, wendy ... but I think in a series targeted at tweens and young adults (nevermind that it long, long ago became clear that the audiences was all ages, all nationalities, all people of entire frelling earth) ... it would have been more responsible for Rowling, with no obligation mind you, to counteract one character's stated intention to smear Dumblefore with allegations of gay pervdom, to declare that his being gay does not mean he's a pedophile. This would be the proper thing to do for an audience of tweens and teens.

Furthermore, and this is solely my artistic opinion, the episode with Grindlewald would have been made far richer if it were made clear just why Dumbledore had such an uncharacteristic lapse of moral judgment.

Really no big deal one way or the other. But I'm beginning to understand why this has caused a brohaha (and not a haha brohaha either). In legal parlance, she opened the door. She put that nasty gay perve smear into the dialogue of a character, and it appeared in a published Harry Potter book. All this stuff about her not having to bring every character's backstory into the books is now moot, imo. She brought it in.

She just did not take the opportunity to best serve her considerably large youngster audience by countering the loathed gossip character's smear with an enlightened portrait of one of the most revered wise men in literature.

[lashbear]

I thought of a lovely T-shirt to wear to the next Gaydays...

Front Of T-shirt:
http://users.tpg.com.au/adslgroh/pics/Dumbledore1.jpg


Rear (Of the T-shirt, silly):
http://users.tpg.com.au/adslgroh/pics/Dumbledore2.jpg

[innerSpaceman]

Please come to next Gay Day.

That shirt will go so nicely with my Gepettophile one!

[wendybeth]

I would have thought Dumbledore's actions his entire life would have negated any nasty smear attempts. Harry's accused of lots of things throughout the series, and he mostly just ignores the negatives and lets events unfold to prove his character. JK has a complete bio on all of the characters in her books, but she only put in the aspects and background pertinent to the storyline. At the end, it was explained why Dumbledore became the man he was and his tragic love story was part of that. Again, she is filling in details post- publication, which I really have no problem with. Her books, her prerogative. Kind of like when she goes on the Today show and tells what happened to all the characters after the story ends.

[innerSpaceman]

well, a missed opportunity, in my view. Even in this day and age, "gay" is not as innocuous a back-ground trait as chess champion.


But yeah, her peroggative and all that.