# Albus Dumbledore was... (shocking news inside!!) **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 20, 2007, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369 "2007-10-20T03:40:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/201 "2007-10-24T02:55:24Z")
[QUOTE=GuanoLad] instead of this ridiculous notion about authors not knowing their own creations that you’re trying to make up, and we can all just go home. [/QUOTE] [I’m not making it up, either.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intentionality) You might not agree with it, but post-structuralism (esp. deconstruction) is a very well-accepted literary theory. Read up on [New Criticism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism) for an in-depth look at my views here. Or call it crap and disagree, but don’t try to tell me I’m making it up because I’m a homophobe or whatever you’re trying to say. I don’t expect an apology for your slurs here, but it would be awfully nice. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/202 "2007-10-24T03:06:32Z")
I admire your stamina,\*\* Ruby\*\*–I gave up pages ago. Clearly, if one has concerns about this issue, one must be homophobic. As it is posted, so it must be. \ (I had no idea that Rowling had revealed that certain characters were black etc., but then, I don’t hang on HP sites) ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/203 "2007-10-24T03:08:40Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] She can think and say whatever she wants. That doesn’t make it canon. It’s just talk unless there’s text to back it up. [/QUOTE] So it doesn’t count what the creator says, only what she writes? If it turns up in the upcoming enyclopedia, then it becomes canon? If she writes a short story tomorrow that explicitly says Dumbledore is gay? Would that count? What if it was a short story that never got published? What if it was a story that only got published in the family Christmas newsletter? What if the story was published, but is only one sentence long, say: “Albus Dumbledore loved cock.”? Bizarre. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/204 "2007-10-24T03:27:14Z")
[QUOTE=Yookeroo] So it doesn’t count what the creator says, only what she writes? [/QUOTE] Read my links about New Criticism. That’s how I think of texts, pretty much, in this situation. You don’t have to agree, and as long as you don’t call me a homophobe, that’s cool. I frankly think hanging on an author’s every word, even after the series is over, is bizarre, and letting her redefine what you may have read. To each his own. ---
**Author:** ![Yookeroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yookeroo/32/323_2.png) [@Yookeroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yookeroo)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/205 "2007-10-24T04:08:11Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] Read my links about New Criticism. [/QUOTE] The author’s intent gets ignored. I get it. I’m still wondering when it crosses over from “talk” to “text”. [QUOTE=Rubystreak] That’s how I think of texts, pretty much, in this situation. You don’t have to agree, and as long as you don’t call me a homophobe, that’s cool. I frankly think hanging on an author’s every word, even after the series is over, is bizarre, and letting her redefine what you may have read. To each his own. [/QUOTE] Hanging on every word? Me? All I ever see of what she says I read here. But I don’t see how this revelation has redefined the character. More like refining his character. I can kind of see how New Criticism can be interesting. But to only look at a work through “New Critic” glasses seems to be rather rigid in outlook. In this case, you have a world the creator may not have quite finished. Things are still fluid. It’s been presented to us through different media. Things are somewhat fluid in this creation. To treat the text as some sort of immutable work at this point strikes me as rather narrow thinking. Almost fundamentalist. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/206 "2007-10-24T04:10:38Z")
That makes no sense. You want him to be an effeminate stereotype? You want him making passes at the male faculty? You want him to have hot anal sex in the Great Hall? It appears he chose to be celibate, but had an infatuation with a male friend when he was younger. That’s plenty gay enough to be realistic, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/207 "2007-10-24T04:23:10Z")
[QUOTE=GuanoLad] That makes no sense. You want him to be an effeminate stereotype? You want him making passes at the male faculty? You want him to have hot anal sex in the Great Hall? [/quote] Wow. You are just going to keep on attacking, eh? First, you state unequivocally that I hate that he’s gay. With nary a retraction or apology for that idiotic comment, now you are saying I want him sexually harassing his staff and hot anal action in the Great Hall. WTF, dude? Can’t make up your mind about what distortion to hurl next, or just bad at reading? Seriously, stop it. I just don’t agree with you about how one deals these revelations by authors. It’s because of my philosophy of how I read texts, not about Dumbledore being gay per se. Don’t agree? Cool. Please stop being so nasty about what actually is an intellectual disagreement. Try arguing intellectually, or take a time-out, or something. Goddamn. Yookeroo, now I’m a fundamentalist? Whatever. I’m just racking up this mischaracterizations here. HP fans are the craziest on the internet. I basically just resent the way Rowling handled this. I think she could have done a lot of good mind-opening by expressing Dumbledore’s gayness a little more explicitly if that was her intention (note for GuanoLad, whose imagination about MY intentions runs away with him and apparently is quite fluid: a LITTLE more explicitly, as in, could be perceived by her primary readership-- kids). I wish she could have said it in the books, where it would have mattered. You’re right that it’s still a work in progress and I’m open to and looking forward to more writings in that universe. Not more interviews with little tidbits, though. Just write more, dammit! Now I’m repeating myself. Sigh. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/208 "2007-10-24T05:34:33Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] If that’s what you were trying to prove, you ended up looking like you don’t know the difference between fictional characters and real people. [/quote] Well, **Ruby** , I’m not 100% convinced of your skills in textual interpretation, so I think I’m going to take that criticism with a grain of salt. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t go as far as CC to question Rowling’s sanity, but talking about a character’s life outside the text is cause for scepticism. Skepticism about what, exactly? > [@](#): > > But Dumbledore is a character in a text. He’s not real. So unless he’s written in the book as being gay, that will always be ambiguous, no matter what the author says later on. Several people in this thread have posted to say that they didn’t realize Dumbledore was gay just from the books, and I bet most kids didn’t either. And they’re not wrong to think that he wasn’t, because it was, and still is AFAIC, not clear. Oh, for… Look, I made the OJ Simpson comparison to prove a point about _grammar_. **CC** said a certain sentence construction had a particular implied meaning, and the analogy was meant to address _that_ argument. It had nothing to do with what is and is not canon. Yeesh. > [@](#): > > I’ll say it one more time, as clearly as possible: the stuff in the books is IN THE BOOKS. The stuff Rowling says? Ain’t. See what I mean? I’ll repeat what I said in earlier posts: future generations reading this won’t know Dumbledore is gay unless they do research. That’s apocryphal, not textual. Yes, we get that. You don’t care about anything that’s not printed in the books. There’s nothing wrong with that. Other people prefer to take a wider view. There’s nothing wrong with that, either, nor is there anything wrong with Rowling catering to that crowd on occasion. You’ve got your books. Be happy with your books. Ignore the other stuff if it bothers you so much. It doesn’t have to change what you read in the books if you don’t want it to. But if you _do_ take a wider approach to how you hear a story, you get to have a gay Dumbledore. Just sayin’. > [@](#): > > What’s weird is making stuff up about characters in books outside the books and talking about it as if it’s real, or it actually happened. That’s why people are saying Rowling is nutty. Dumbledore is only what it says he is in the books. You know what you need? You need to be [more like](http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=234) [Karla.](http://www.homeonthestrange.com/view.php?ID=235) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/209 "2007-10-24T05:41:37Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] HP fans are the craziest on the internet. [/QUOTE] Is this a good time to mention that I’ve never read any of the Harry Potter books? ---
**Author:** ![Antinor01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecae2f/32.png) [@Antinor01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antinor01)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/210 "2007-10-24T05:47:57Z")
[QUOTE=GuanoLad] That makes no sense. You want him to be an effeminate stereotype? You want him making passes at the male faculty? You want him to have hot anal sex in the Great Hall? It appears he chose to be celibate, but had an infatuation with a male friend when he was younger. That’s plenty gay enough to be realistic, I think. [/QUOTE] Perhaps he chose so. Keep in mind though, he was over 100 at the start of the first book and over 110 through most of the books. Wizard or no, I would imagine his having sex days were long over. ---
**Author:** ![ArizonaTeach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/45deac/32.png) [@ArizonaTeach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArizonaTeach)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/211 "2007-10-24T06:09:15Z")
[QUOTE=Biggirl] The reason I think all of you who are protesting so loudly over this little tidbit are aghast because of the GAY is because you all seem to either not understand the concept of backstory or think JKR should have kept the backstory to herself-- but only when it comes to this little bit of information. And I know you are much too intelligent to not know about or, at least understand once explained to you, backstory. And nobody has given one sixthousandths of a fig about Longbottom marrying Hannah Abbott or this particularly juicy bit of backstory: [/QUOTE] Well, if that’s what you get out of this thread then all I can say is that you’re not paying attention to what’s being said in this thread. In any case, there’s a huge difference between mentioning something that happened after the general setting of the books, outside the context of the books, and a dropped fact that fundamentally alters the books. Example: if Snape’s love of Lily was never mentioned in the books, but six months after the final book came out, Rowling off-handedly mentioned, “Oh, the reason Snape protects Harry is because he was in love with Lily - that’s his great tragedy,” I’d be just as taken aback. But some people just don’t seem to get that, prefering to believe that anyone who isn’t celebrating the revelation must be afraid of catching “teh gay.” I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![Rachael\_Rage](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/71c47a/32.png) [@Rachael\_Rage](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachael_Rage)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/212 "2007-10-24T06:11:37Z")
I get where you’re coming from, **Rubystreak** , but this is where I disagree (emphasis mine): [QUOTE=Rubystreak] In 100 years, if someone picks up the series out of their grandmother’s attic, will they know Dumbledore is gay? Maybe they’ll suspect, maybe not, depends, but unless Gramma printed out that interview and slipped it between the pages, the kid probably won’t **know this very important fact** about Dumbledore. That’s why it ain’t canon. [/QUOTE] It is not a “very important fact”. Jo Rowling (and/or her editors) didn’t think it was important enough to make more explicit in the books, probably because it wasn’t important enough **to Harry** , who others have noted is the books’ point of view, and by implication didn’t cotton on to Dumbledore’s romantic life any more than he did to, oh, say Sirius’s. So, you’re right that Dumbledore’s sexuality is not canon, but you are basically arguing that you wish it were, and that it was cowardly for Rowling not to make it so. But it completely makes sense that she wouldn’t. Sexuality is simply one of a vast constellation of Dumbledore’s character traits that Rowling didn’t find essential enough to state outright in books 1-7, and so should not have any enormous impact on how you, or anyone, views the character or the story. Does it really matter that Dumbledore was in love with GG? Actually, no. All we absolutely need to know to understand the situation was that they were very close and the end of their friendship was painful for Dumbledore. In other words, the idea that Dumbledore being gay may be intriguing but it doesn’t change anything whatsoever about his character or the story. Dumbledore is still Dumbledore, as written on the page. The only reason his sexuality would be “very important” is if you think being gay is very different from being straight. But it’s not. On preview: **ArizonaTeach** is essentially making the same argument. That his being gay fundamentally changes things. But it doesn’t. Why would it? ---
**Author:** ![rayh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@rayh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rayh)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/213 "2007-10-24T07:47:19Z")
[QUOTE=eleanorigby] Tolkien did NOT add plot points or bits about characters in his interviews. [/QUOTE] No, Tolkien just revised the books themselves. He rewrote the chapter _Riddles in the Dark_ from the Hobbit to make it more compatible with Lord of the Rings, so the early editions of the Hobbit are different from the later ones. [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Revisions). ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/214 "2007-10-24T10:12:58Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] Totally, completely wrong in my case and in the case of most, if not all, people posting to this thread. Homophobia and an inability to understand this “backstory” concept aren’t the problem. Homophobia may be what kept this key bit of info out of the books, though, eh? There is a big difference between talking about what happens to a character in a future not yet written (Neville and Hannah) v. redefining/revealing a major part of a focal character’s life, which would have been relevant in the context of the books themselves. Aberforth? Not a very major character. So I think you kinda missed the point of what is being argued here. [/QUOTE] So it’s O.K. to have and talk about backstory of any character so long as you don’t deem him important to the story? It’s O.K. for an author to infer that a character she made up fucks goats but she can’t “change” Dumbledore. Well, she didn’t “change” Dumbledore. Dumbldore was written with this fact firmly in mind. Her understanding of Dumbldore is more complete than yours or anyone else’s and all this boo-hooing really is just protesting too much. I understand perfectly the point you are trying to make. It’s a silly point, and it seems to me to be rooted in your and elenor just not wanting Dumbldore to be gay. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/215 "2007-10-24T11:23:05Z")
[QUOTE=Biggirl] I understand perfectly the point you are trying to make. It’s a silly point, and it seems to me to be rooted in your and elenor just not wanting Dumbldore to be gay. [/QUOTE] I WANT DUMBLEDORE TO BE GAY. So you’re just not getting it. And I’m through explaining it, since you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of every single thing I say to the contrary. Insane, but go right on making things up about me. Have fun with that. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/216 "2007-10-24T12:14:27Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Well, **Ruby** , I’m not 100% convinced of your skills in textual interpretation, so I think I’m going to take that criticism with a grain of salt. [/quote] And since you haven’t read the books, everything you said about them in this thread is to be taken with an entire mineful. In fact, my thoughts on your antics in this thread have definitely taken on a new color now that you’ve revealed that you haven’t read the books. I’m actually quite amused, though the rest of my comments would be appropriate to another forum. That’s all I’m going to say, since I now think this thread has gone well into “ridiculous” territory. ---
**Author:** ![Biggirl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biggirl/32/3294_2.png) [@Biggirl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biggirl)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/217 "2007-10-24T12:25:52Z")
[QUOTE=Rubystreak] I WANT DUMBLEDORE TO BE GAY. So you’re just not getting it. And I’m through explaining it, since you’re going to believe whatever you want to believe, regardless of every single thing I say to the contrary. Insane, but go right on making things up about me. Have fun with that. [/QUOTE] Your right. I do not believe you. Not while you jump up and down about how wrong it is for Rowlings to ‘change’ a character when, in fact, she ‘changed’ nothing. When she wrote the words, he was gay. Now that you know he was gay, go back and read the books and see how the book has ‘changed’. Oh wait, it _hasn’t_ changed. Not by one tiny syllable. The only change has been your perception. ---
**Author:** ![Rubystreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e5b9ba/32.png) [@Rubystreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rubystreak)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/218 "2007-10-24T13:11:05Z")
[QUOTE=Biggirl] Your right. I do not believe you. Not while you jump up and down about how wrong it is for Rowlings to ‘change’ a character when, in fact, she ‘changed’ nothing. When she wrote the words, he was gay. Now that you know he was gay, go back and read the books and see how the book has ‘changed’. Oh wait, it _hasn’t_ changed. Not by one tiny syllable. The only change has been your perception. [/QUOTE] Why don’t you just call me a homophobe and get it over with? You’d be totally fucking wrong, though. I have extensively, perhaps too extensively, explained my philosophical reasons for objecting to this kind of authorial announcement. The content of the announcement does not matter. Thus, my happiness that Dumbledore is gay is totally irrelevant. But if the only thing you can say to me is that you think I have a problem with gay people, you’re not worth talking to anyway. On ANY topic, not just complex literary theory that is obviously beyond you. ---
**Author:** ![Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a88e4f/32.png) [@Eleanor\_of\_Aquitaine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/219 "2007-10-24T13:09:37Z")
[QUOTE=Antinor01] Perhaps he chose so. Keep in mind though, he was over 100 at the start of the first book and over 110 through most of the books. Wizard or no, I would imagine his having sex days were long over. [/QUOTE] Surely Madam Pomfrey can dispense the magical equivalent of the little blue pill? ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2007, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369/220 "2007-10-24T13:19:25Z")
[QUOTE=rayh] No, Tolkien just revised the books themselves. He rewrote the chapter _Riddles in the Dark_ from the Hobbit to make it more compatible with Lord of the Rings, so the early editions of the Hobbit are different from the later ones. [Cite](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit#Revisions). [/QUOTE] Good for him. And if Rowling would like to change the content IN her books–she’s welcome to do so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/albus-dumbledore-was-shocking-news-inside/423369.md?page=12)