Albus Dumbledore was... (shocking news inside!!)

Cafe Society
101

[QUOTE=Galena]
It’s not because I’m uncomfortable with homosexuality, it’s because I didn’t want to think of Dumbledore in a sexual way. I didn’t want to be presented with or think about his sexuality, what ever it be, in any way whatsoever. I wish I could articulate it better, but it just seems wrong to be talking about it. He’s such a parental figure in the books, that a discussion of it seems like a non sequitur.

[/QUOTE]

Bingo. I don’ t care if Rowling thought of AD as a goat felcher like his brother–whatever she needed to get the stuff on paper. But his sexuality is irrelevant to the plot and his character development. My largest concern is her relevations–NOT what is contained within them. I find this behavior on the part of the author bizarre. Yes, bizarre.

No one seems to be reading my posts–apparently considering me to be some sort of hidden bigot is easier or something (I’m looking at you,** Miller**.) FYI: I would feel the same if Rowling had said that Lilly and James were destined for divorce or that McGonagall had a crush on Voldemort or Petunia had had an affair or that Vernon really sold insurance, not drills. It doesn’t matter what was revealed–it’s the revealing. (but Rowling had to know that AD is gay would cause a shitstorm of talk. For all we know, her publishers didn’t allow her to include it).

Are we to subjected to minutae about HP et al for years now? If so, why doesn’t she just write another book? It sounds to me like she is not done with this world (or else just can’t let it go). Perhaps she needs help of some kind. HP was a global phenomena, unlike anything seen before–but I hope her habit of doing this is NOT replicated by other authors. It’s creepy. Here’s my book and what I have to say about my characters, but wait! there’s more–here’s a load of stuff I didn’t include! It’s bizarre. Whatever happened to let the work stand for itself?

102

I’ve always felt that Professors Flitwick, Grubbly-Plank and Slughorn were probably gay, along with (possibly) Aunt Marge. That’s not “ret-con,” that was my honest perception when I read the books. I didn’t pick up on Dumbledore, but it makes sense, in retrospect. I did wonder why he went to pick up Tom Riddle for school wearing what I thought of as an Oscar Wilde suit.

The fact neither Dumbledore nor any of the other professors (including the heterosexual ones) chose to overtly reveal their sexuality to their students is hardly surprising, is it? Or is a declaration of sexual orientation considered a normal part of the student-teacher relationship these days? (Yes, I know we know that both Snape and Lupin were straight, but that wasn’t revealed in a school context.)

Actually, I did pick up a hint of nasty pedophile innuendo in one of Rita Skeeter’s comments about Harry and Dumbledore’s relationship, but I just took it as another bit of general evilness on her part, not an indication that Dumbledore was gay.

I just don’t get all the roiling controversy. If Rowling wants to say her intention was to portray Dumbledore as a colobus monkey, that’s her business as long as the text doesn’t contradict it outright, and there is nothing whatsoever in the text that precludes Dumbledore from being gay (and a few things which support it).

103

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I don’t think it’s bigotry either, but it seems to me like this is being treated as “huge character development” whereas being straight wouldn’t be.
[/QUOTE]

Well, it wouldn’t be. Straight is the default position; gay is, perhaps not abnormal, but certainly unusual. That’s how it always has been, always will be.

104

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
…always will be.
[/QUOTE]

I hope not.

105

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, it wouldn’t be. Straight is the default position; gay is, perhaps not abnormal, but certainly unusual. That’s how it always has been, always will be.
[/QUOTE]
You’re right, though I would point out that I could say that we should expect a minority of characters to be gay, and since there are plenty of straight characters we should almost be expecting a couple of gay characters. But what I mean is less that it is not unusual, but more that it’s being treated as if this changes Dumbledore’s character significantly. It does certainly mean we can look at some of his backstory in a new light, but he’s still the same character. It just feels to me like there wouldn’t be this much fuss if he had been revealed to be straight; it wouldn’t be treated as such a huge afterthought.

eleanorigby - in case you were thinking of me too, I certainly don’t consider you a bigot. OTOH, suggesting that because Rowling answered a question at a book tour means she “can’t let it go” or “needs help of some kind” and that it’s creepy seems a bit hyperbolic. People are interested in asking these questions. I know she has a lot of that backstory that she didn’t use, and I for one would be interested to hear more from it. I mean, really, creepy?

106

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
HP was a global phenomena, unlike anything seen before–but I hope her habit of doing this is NOT replicated by other authors. It’s creepy.
[/QUOTE]

Where the hell have you been for the last… ever? Does the name Tolkien ring a bell? How about Roddenberry? Lucas, maybe? Are you really under the impression that this sort of thing is unprecedented? Did you expect interest in Harry Potter to just stop when the last book came out? Rowling’s created the latest great fantasy/sci-fi franchise with her books. The fandom for these things is going to go on for decades from now, and those fans are always going to be interested in hearing more about the backstory, or the creative process Rowling used, or ideas that she discarded or didn’t fully implement. And yeah, there’s a good chance Rowling is going to want to talk about this stuff. For fuck’s sake, writing these books has been the central occupation of her life for the last twelve years. You think it’s creepy that she’s still interested in talking about it? She should, what? Pretend it never happened, now that the books are done?

107

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
This is what I meant. If you’re an author, you’re supposed to put the relevant stuff about your characters IN THE BOOKS. I feel like there are the books, the films and now this weird land of “oh, yeah-this is really good, but too bad I didn’t include it.” FTR, I never thought of AD as sexual; that is, I never considered his sexuality as pertinent. To me, he was the wise sage who fosters Harry, but must die in order for Harry to learn final lessons. It doesn’t matter to me that he is gay; if it had been explicitly in the books, that would have been fine (but I’ll bet the publisher would have had kittens).
I see the point re the Q&A; perhaps “attention whore” is too strong. But Rowling has to know this particular tidbit would be inflammatory and controversial.
[/QUOTE]

So? She should ignore questions with controversial answers?

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I never heard of Dickens doing this, or Trollope or Christie or even the guy who wrote Lemony Snicket. Back story is all well and good for the author’s use. To drop stuff like this about AD and Neville (lives above a pub and marries Hannah Abbott)–why not write another book?
[/QUOTE]

She doesn’t want to?

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
IMO, Rowling doesn’t know what to do with all her backstory and info. I think she should write Hogwarts, a History, or a compendium of characters with their backstories included (or future stories). Not talk about her books this way.
[/QUOTE]

Why? What’s wrong with talking about the books this way?

[QUOTE=Miller]
I’m really gobsmacked by the reaction this is getting. Authors have backstory and motivations for their characters that is not explicitly spelled out in the books. Rowling, when writing Dumbledore, had in her head, as part of his backstory, that he was gay, and had been in love with another guy way back when. It’s not explicitly in the books. If you read the books, and Dumbledore comes across as straight, that’s fine. Use the interpretation that gives you the most enjoyment from the work. But getting all huffy because Rowling revealed a bit of backstory that never made it into the books is fucking bizarre.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah. And it’s pretty telling that this is the only particular tidbit that is causing the objections. It would never have occurred to me that this was controversial, at least on this board.

High profile author of enormously popular books answer questions about characters she created. When one turns out to be gasp gay, it suddenly becomes unseemly to answer these questions.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Put another way; this also reveals that Neville Longbottom is heterosexual. A while back, she revealed that Luna Lovegood was likewise heterosexual.
[/QUOTE]

How dare she. She should just write another book if she wants to tell us this.

108

Why do some of you seem so upset at the image of Dumbledore with a dick in his mouth? Or up his ass? Or with his dick in some other guy’s mouth or ass?
Dumbledore is a fictional character created by JKR. His backstory is whatever she says it is. If the idea of Dumbledore chugging cock distresses you that much, maybe you’d be better off reading the Left Behind series. The sodomites are all clearly identified textually there, I understand.

109

[QUOTE=Frylock]
…

Come on guys, let’s have the hints! Where are they in the text?

…

-FrL-
[/QUOTE]

Wasn’t there a scene in one of the early books where Dumbledore asked Harry if he wanted to see the pointy hat trick?

Oh! And wasn’t there another one where he’s eating some Bertie Botts Every Flavour Beans and he says “Mmm, cock flavour!”.

110

[QUOTE=Scumpup]
Why do some of you seem so upset at the image of Dumbledore with a dick in his mouth? Or up his ass? Or with his dick in some other guy’s mouth or ass?
Dumbledore is a fictional character created by JKR. His backstory is whatever she says it is. If the idea of Dumbledore chugging cock distresses you that much, maybe you’d be better off reading the Left Behind series. The sodomites are all clearly identified textually there, I understand.
[/QUOTE]
While i’m pretty much on the “less fuss” side, this is just silly. I wouldn’t accuse anyone in this thread of homophobia or of being “distressed” by cock-chugging, and i’d like to say that before someone comes in and derides what i’m forced to call “our” side in general as accusing everyone of that.

This is not a thread I saw going towards GD or the Pit, but hey. :wink:

111

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Don’t you see a qualitative difference between telling about a character’s future, which one really couldn’t know from the text already written, and redefining an existing character? Being gay is part of who you are your whole life, so it does subtly change what we’ve already read about Dumbledore.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t really think it changes what we read about Dumbledore any more than Rowling saying “he’s straight; Albus’s fiancee died in a tragic magic carpet accident and that’s why he never married” would have been.

Dumbledore’s sexuality had nothing to do with his actions in the series. I don’t think that means that the author isn’t allowed to say anything about it.

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
Like I said, I think it’s fine and only wished she’d had the chutzpah to include it in the canonical books where relevant …
[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. But I think that would’ve been a bit too ballsy for Ms. Rowling.

112

Can’t it just be a marketing ploy to encourage renewed interest in micro-analyzing her books at a time when probably quite a few people were thinking “Thank God that’s finally over” ?

By the way, Snape? Allergic to Tabasco. The subtext is there, if you know where to look.

113

Based on elaeanorrigby’s posting history in Harry Potter threads, I think that she shares my own frustration with JK Rowling. If, as Rowling has said, there will be no more books or stories about Albus Dumbledore, then I don’t need to know one more fact about him. Everything I need to know is in the books. I think she is a first-class writer, and I would like to know more about what she is writing, and less about what she’s already written.

Major revelations about characters she’s not going to write about anymore, whether it’s that they’re straight or gay, is not something I’m interested in, and suggests to me that she’s not done with these characters. If she has more to say about them, she should put it in a book, or she should let it go.

114

[QUOTE=Scumpup]
Why do some of you seem so upset at the image of Dumbledore with a dick in his mouth? Or up his ass? Or with his dick in some other guy’s mouth or ass?
Dumbledore is a fictional character created by JKR. His backstory is whatever she says it is. If the idea of Dumbledore chugging cock distresses you that much, maybe you’d be better off reading the Left Behind series. The sodomites are all clearly identified textually there, I understand.
[/QUOTE]

Cite? :rolleyes:

115

[QUOTE=saoirse]
I think she is a first-class writer, and I would like to know more about what she is writing, and less about what she’s already written … If she has more to say about them, she should put it in a book, or she should let it go.
[/QUOTE]

I think she’s a fair writer who got very lucky, and then got very lazy. I’d be willing to bet that she’s going to ride the Harry Potter wave as long as she possibly can, be it through “reveals” like this, or companion books, or Chocolate Frog cards.

[sub]She has to know that nothing new she writes is going to be as popular or successful.[/sub]

116

[QUOTE=Orual]
I don’t really think it changes what we read about Dumbledore any more than Rowling saying “he’s straight; Albus’s fiancee died in a tragic magic carpet accident and that’s why he never married” would have been.
[/quote]

That would have annoyed me too, since if she thought it was important enough to talk about it should be important enough to write about, but not as much. I think it’s a big deal if a major, beloved character in a series of kid’s books is revealed to be gay, after the fact when it can’t affect sales in a big way. It seems cowardly for her to reveal this now, as a kind of retcon.

I wish she had “said” it in the books, if she considers it worth saying at all. And it could have been worked into what parts of his backstory were revealed. I embrace the idea that Dumbledore is gay, and wish Rowling had too, in an appropriate context in the book.

Hence my annoyance, which is NOT that Dumbledore is gay, but that this is how she makes it so. Lame!

117

[QUOTE=saoirse]
Based on elaeanorrigby’s posting history in Harry Potter threads, I think that she shares my own frustration with JK Rowling. If, as Rowling has said, there will be no more books or stories about Albus Dumbledore, then I don’t need to know one more fact about him. Everything I need to know is in the books. I think she is a first-class writer, and I would like to know more about what she is writing, and less about what she’s already written.

Major revelations about characters she’s not going to write about anymore, whether it’s that they’re straight or gay, is not something I’m interested in, and suggests to me that she’s not done with these characters. If she has more to say about them, she should put it in a book, or she should let it go.
[/QUOTE]

Well put, and with much less verbiage than I could manage. Thanks.

And yes, I find it slightly creepy about Rowling. It will be even creepier when the final movie is over and done with and she is still hawking bits o’ trivia to whomever will listen.

Tolkien did NOT add plot points or bits about characters in his interviews. I can’t speak for Lucas, mostly because Star Wars was fairly meh for me, so I didn’t follow it-I’ve never seen the prequels and don’t intend to. I know that Laura Ingalls Wilder didn’t do this, nor did Beverly Cleary re the Ramona and Henry Huggins books, nor did C. S. Lewis re Narnia, nor did Baum about Oz (there were 14 books about Oz).

Think about this. It’s like watching some of those director commentaries on DVDs. Sometimes they say stuff like, “we wanted this to be blue and to play the song, “MacArthur’s Park” in that scene, but X happened, so it didn’t get filmed that way.” I have always wondered about that type of thing–why include it? It’s interesting in a mild way,* but the work stands as filmed or written or played or composed*. NOT how the author/artist says it would have been, if only…

I thoroughly enjoyed the HP books and their universe. I even think it’s cool that the world’s most powerful wizard is gay. But I think it’s disrespectful of Rowling to her own writing and her works to do this sort of thing. I just can’t explain it better than that.

118

[QUOTE=Scumpup]
Why do some of you seem so upset at the image of Dumbledore with a dick in his mouth? Or up his ass? Or with his dick in some other guy’s mouth or ass?
Dumbledore is a fictional character created by JKR. His backstory is whatever she says it is. If the idea of Dumbledore chugging cock distresses you that much, maybe you’d be better off reading the Left Behind series. The sodomites are all clearly identified textually there, I understand.
[/QUOTE]

I really shouldn’t answer this ridiculous post, but I will. You’ve missed most of the point, but what the hell. Here goes:

It’s like imaging Santa having sex. I don’t care that there is supposedly a “Mrs Claus”–I don’t see Santa as a sexual figure. (yeah, I know he’s not real-neither is Dumbledore). I don’t see AD as sexual either, although I am sure he was/is/will be–whatever. Again, if his being gay helped Rowling write him–that’s fantastic. But she either should have had the courage to include that in his backstory OR she should include it in another book about Hogwarts etc.

I think** Bryan**and Orual might be on to something–except she’s richer than God at this point, so she has no material need to “ride this wave”. I think she might have a psychological need to not let go. How long do book tours last?–for her, they must be years.

119

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
I think** Bryan**and Orual might be on to something–except she’s richer than God at this point, so she has no material need to “ride this wave”. I think she might have a psychological need to not let go.
[/QUOTE]

For what it’s worth, I didn’t mean a financial wave so much as an attention wave. She’s been the World’s Most Famous Author for how many years now? You think she really wants to let that go?

[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
Tolkien did NOT add plot points or bits about characters in his interviews.
[/QUOTE]

No, but his son started doing it after he died. There’s volumes upon volumes of the stuff nowadays. (Not that I’m complaining.)

[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
It seems cowardly for her to reveal this now, as a kind of retcon.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know, I’m not sure it could have been included without looking really shoe-horned. But I do see where you’re coming from.

In any case, it’s possible that I’m not getting annoyed at Rowling’s behavior here because I’m so much more annoyed by the fact that she stopped caring about writing good books some time around the year 2000.

120

[QUOTE=Orual]
Exactly. I didn’t see any of this indignation when she talked about the kids’ future careers, or that Hermione eventually removed the memory-switching spell from her parents.
[/QUOTE]

She did? Whew. For some reason I cried when I read the passage in “Deathly Hallows” where she mentions that. I guess I put myself in the Grangers’ shoes – one day I have a brilliant, beautiful daughter, the next… I don’t. Or I do, but I don’t remember ever having her. :frowning: