But no, it isn’t. The books don’t provide any real insight into Dumbledore’s sexual orientation. If it’s not in the books, it didn’t happen, and you can assume almost anything you want about Dumbledore’s sexual proclivities.
Yup, that’s right. It didn’t.
Actually, I’d put less stock in Scott’s claim, because Scott reversed his position; he was very adamant when he made the film that Decker was human. He told Harrison Ford, point blank, that Deckard was not a replicant.
He reversed his position for no other reason that to sell DVDs, really.
She put tons of things in the books, which in her mind were there from the very start or pretty early on, that many of her astute readers picked up on, even though they were only subtle, and often irrelevant-to-the-main-plot things. This is one that didn’t seem to be picked up on or be talked about online, so now she reveals what the facts were.
This is not retconning, or additional, this is in response to the fans asking about more details. You can put your fingers in your ears, if you like, but it doesn’t negate it’s factual nature within the story.
Honestly the whole thing just strikes me as belated pandering. Hooray, Jo, you finally put a gay person in your seven book series with eight kabillion characters, except you forgot to mention it so that it would serve as any kind of interesting character or plot development. Just about everyone else is paired up (and explicitly hetero) – Christ, even Snape’s double-dealing is explained away because he had a heart ouchie over Lily – but Dumbledore, the only gay guy, we only find out after the books are safely in print.
Maybe I wouldn’t find this so pointless if I weren’t still bitter over various character assassinations (literally) in DH, but sorry, I’m not giving JKR any medals for inclusiveness or originality after the fact. I’d have applauded her if she’d had some gay characters in the series – not as a ‘message’, just as a fact of life – but now? Whatever.
BTW, eleanorigby, it’s Michael Gambon, not Timothy. I think you were conflating him with Timothy Spall (Peter Pettigrew).
Let me put it this way; I could say “I wrote the HP books”. That would be a lie. It’s totally untrue, baseless, and all the rest of that. But it’s relevant, since it still concerns the subject in question.
Precisely. You need to back them up with cites - but according to your view, these cites must spell out the interpretation explicitly. Want to say Hamlet was actually a parable about not dithering? According to your view, we cannot, because this moral is not explicitly stated. It must be very confusing for you when characters lie, because unless it’s pointed out they lied i’m not sure how you know they aren’t just mad or something.
It’s nonsense, as you say. Of course we can do these things; we can read between the lines, or we can take a message to our own lives, or we can draw parallels. But under your view, we cannot do anything but read what is spelled out explicitly in the text. “Interpretation” is limited only to the lines we see.
I would pretty much agree that I didn’t see any homosexual themes in the books (others may disagree). But you don’t need to make an issue out of it for there to be gay characters.
I think the problem here is that being gay isn’t something that requires any actual activity (during a period of time shorter than a life, anyway). We assume that Dumbledore has a mind in the books, although we never actually get inside his head or read his thoughts in the books. Yet we assume it exists, or at least I do. I don’t consider his having a brain to be equal in possibility to him being a cunning robot of some kind, or the idea that actually his responses are totally random but within that infinitesimal chance that they’re also relevant. I assume it even though it’s not explicit. I assume Harry and co. use the toilet at some point in the story, even though that’s not written down (and thank goodness for that). I feel that if I make these small assumptions, read essentially what isn’t explicitly in the text, it seems likewise reasonable to include what the author thought about backgrounds when they were writing it.
I knew that. Duh. Thanks for the correction. I was hoping to not hear from Rowling for quite some time (like the next movie’s premier or something). I liked the books, but think that any major character development like this should have been IN the books, not after. Your writing is just supposed to stand as is; you’re not supposed to say “ooh, I would have added this and that and the other thing–IF I’d known you liked it so much.”
Man, I was just thinking that. And there were people in that thread who said, “It doesn’t matter what the author says; they could be wrong.”
Hey, if the author says Dumbledore is gay, then Dumbledore is gay. I’m not threatened by that. However, the fact she never wrote it into any of her books says something either about her as a writer, or her convictions as a person, and neither of those options is very flattering. Or, she just figured it was totally irrelevant, in which case I have no idea why she felt the need to bring it up now.
And IMHO, the factions that somehow “figured out” that he was gay from the books are deluding themselves. They were either projecting or involved in wishful thinking, and most likely had Neville pegged as gay, too.
Exactly. I don’t care if AD is straight or gay–unless the author thinks that his orientation is important as either a subtext(character development) or as a plot point–since she didn’t include it in any of the books (not so much as a hint), I can only assume it wasn’t important, so why learn about it now?
Or is she doing what directors do when they add director’s commentary to their DVDs? Is this comparable? Thoughts?
Because it came up in a Q&A at Carnegie Hall during her US tour. That’s why. She could just as easily have not revealed it, but obviously there came about a question that caused her to reveal it. I doubt very much it was a calculated reveal, or any kind of retcon.
Boy, you guys really seem to like getting the wrong end of the stick and never letting go.
I didn’t make this huge revelation “Dumbledore is gay!” when I was reading the books. But I did feel there was a bit more going on with Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald than was told in the book. I shrugged it off at the time because I didn’t really think Rawlings was going to go there. After all they are children’s books and no one is really sexual in them anyway. So even though I didn’t exactly have it figured out, when I heard JKR say Dumbledore was gay my first reaction was “Oh, I thought it would be a different character who would be gay”, and my second reaction was “okay, that’s not really that surprising.”
Well, that’s needlessly confrontational…The question she was asked was, “Did Dumbledore ever find his true love.” The answer did not in any way have to be, “Dumbledore was gay.”
A few people are claiming to have picked up on him being gay. But no one has produced textual evidence.
All I remember is that Albus and that other guy whose name starts with a G were good friends when they were kids. It takes more than that (more, even, than saying they had a deep and intimate friendship) to imply, much less establish, that a pair are homosexuals in love with each other. So I am curious to see what in the text goes beyond simply saying they were friends (however deep their friendship might have been).
There is such a thing as subtext. Not everything has to be spelled out. It’s hinted at in Dumbledore’s behavior in his youth (not to mention the fact that he was a confirmed bachelor his whole life).
Writers often have have larger backstories for their characters in their heads or in their notes than what ends up on the page. Since HP is ostensibly written for children, I can see why Rowling would treat this particular story wrinkle very subtly on the page even if sh felt it very clearly when imagining the story.
No one is denying that there is such a thing as subtext. What some of us here are
essentially rolling our eyes at is this sharing by Rowling of stuff that either should have been in the published material to begin with or just used by her as material for another book.
Did Tolkien ever say, BTW, Sam has an affair after Rosie loses her looks from having all those little hobbits? Or, if I’d known this would make you happy, I’d have shared that most elves are gay? Did LeGuin come out later and say, “oh-Tenar was really a man”?
IMO, Dumbledore’s sexuality was irrelevant to the plot and to his character development–it did not come into play. For her to say this now–when she is well aware of the controversy it will bring–is disingenous at best. Most likely, as has been said, it is pandering. That question could have been answered by a simple yes or no. Or she should have had the courage to allude to it in the books. Subtle? How about non-existant?
I do think it’s cool that AD is the best wizard in the world, the most powerful etc–it’s a great role for a gay character. What worries is me is Rowling. I think she can’t let this go (and maybe it’s too soon, given the phenomenom that is the HP books), but I wonder if we will have annual “indiscretions” by her, until we are fed to the back teeth with “details I didn’t include” re HP and his world.
Again, if she really wants to share with us all the info about her world, she needs to write another book.
Right. Confirmed bachelors are ipso facto gay. :dubious:
Come on guys, let’s have the hints! Where are they in the text? Exhibit for us the distinction between “subtle” and “nonexistent.”
What behavior in Dumbledore’s youth hints that he is gay?
By the way, I’m not denying Dumbledore’s gay. The book is completely compatible with that possibility–it had better be, since that’s what its author had in mind! What I’m denying is that anyone would have any basis for thinking he is gay from reading the book. Or rather, I’m not even denying that–I’m just challenging it, asking for "cite"s in the grand SDMB tradition.
