quote:

---

In front of a full house of hardcore Potter fans at Carnegie Hall in New York, Rowling, sitting on the stage on a red velvet and carved wood throne, read from her seventh and final book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," then took questions. One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience errupted in surprise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Just like Gandalf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Is this a joke? That's...possibly the most random thing I've ever heard.

I join in on the "so what?" And the way that article is worded sounds like it COULD be construed as offensive. As if to say, "No he hasn't loved anyone, he's gay." Like "he's gay" is an answer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tarrsk:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
Is this a joke? That's...possibly the most random thing I've ever heard.

I join in on the "so what?" And the way that article is worded sounds like it COULD be construed as offensive. As if to say, "No he hasn't loved anyone, he's gay." Like "he's gay" is an answer.

---

I can see how you'd get that vibe from just that sentence alone, but the article immediately follows it up with Rowling's description of Dumbledore's unrequited love for Grindelwald, so...

---

quote:

---

I didn't think Maiar had gender.

---

I don't know if they all had gender, but many of them did. One example is Melian, mother of Luthien.

Yes, I was referencing Ian McKellan. I don't recall anything from Tolkien even hinting that Gandalf was a sexual being at all.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
Oh good point, I guess some of the Maiar did have gender. I need to reread my Silmarillion.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
As do I.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I'm actually in the middle of Fellowship right now. I picked it up randomly and got about 10 pages in when I realized I haven't read it in like two or three years. I read the Silmarillion probably twice a year, but I think I'm going to reread all of it while I'm at it, though I don't know if I'm going to go back and read the Histories or not, but I think I'll run through the Sil, Children of Hurin (yay!), and the Unfinished Tales while I'm at it. Might as well get all that Fantasy yearning at one time before I dive into something new.
 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 
"Let me get this straight," said Snape. "You're asking me to commit a hate crime?"
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
It explains his brilliance and creativity.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Psst. It's McKellen, guys. Honest!
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
I always thought Ian McKellan would make an excellent Dumbledore, which has nothing to do with anything, but I wanted to throw that in there because I really thought he would be good. Okay.
 

---

Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fyfe:
He didn't kill him. And Grindelwald's final act was to try to keep Voldemort from going after Dumbledore. Aw.

---

I was thinking the exact same thing. That just became really powerful.
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
Yeah, but it makes all those tender Harry/Dumbledore moments just a bit, I don't know, creepy.
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Call me crazy, and I really don't care about who is what sexual orientation, but to echo a sentiment voiced here months ago.....I'm kind of sick of her telling us all this stuff that didn't make it into the book.

Look, you had your chance. You wrote what you could. If you want to do the encyclopedia thing, okay. Maybe I'm something of a jerk, but to me the stuff you leave to your reader's imagination can be just as important as what you do write down
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Yeah, but it makes all those tender Harry/Dumbledore moments just a bit, I don't know, creepy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Yeah, but it makes all those tender Harry/Dumbledore moments just a bit, I don't know, creepy.

---

Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
"I too however wish Rowling would stop spontaneously blurting out details about here characters that she did not include in the books."

Yeah, me too, but I seriously doubt she'll stop anytime soon. She has no idea, I'm sure, how annoying it can be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Yeah, but it makes all those tender Harry/Dumbledore moments just a bit, I don't know, creepy.

---

Why?

---

Well imagine Dumbledore actually being a head mistress and saying/doing all those things with Harry from all the books. Are you saying the thought would have NEVER entered your mind that Dumbledelores (sorry couldn't help it) might MIGHT enjoy Harry's company for reasons outside maternalism?

---

Um...no. What did they do that was sexual? Love comes in many varieties, many of which are not about sex.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"Actually, as far as I can see they are her books, her characters, and her privilege to say or not say what she wants about them."

It's mine and BlackBlade's privilege to find it largely a waste of our time, is it not?
 

---

Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
 
I think it bothers me more that she said Neville ended up with Hannah Abbott rather than Luna. I thought Neville and Luna would have been great together. Grrr!
 

---

Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
 
steven: I'm having a hard time understanding how Rowling speaking to fans at a book-signing about a particular character's sexuality is in any way a waste of your time. were you there? did she call you up aftewards and force you to listen to the news?

incidentals about a particular fictional world (such as who-married-who and what job someone had) are the author's prerogative to reveal. most good authors have huge, elaborate back-stories for their characters. why does it bother you so much? because she is choosing to release that information in an informal manner, rather than in another book?
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
I was disappointed about the Hannah Abbott thing too, but maybe Hannah Abbott is a very cool person, if we only knew. We just don't know anything about her. I never really was in favor of a Neville-Luna relationship; I can see him wanting to marry her, but I don't think she'd have him. Her marrying a weird-creatures-finder guy is much more better, I feel.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
I agree totally that she should just hush. She should pour her energies into another series. Even if i'ts still related to the HP universe, at least do something new instead of just spilling information about a series that's already been written and talked to death.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I agree with Fyfe about Neville and Luna. I don't like the idea of pairing them off just because they're the two odd-men-out. They both deserved someone who appreciates them for who they are.

I think it's cool that Dumbledore turns out to be gay. It makes a lot of sense now, though it never occurred to me before. It gives so much more depth and poignance to the Grindelwald subplot. How sad! I love Dumbledore.

And, yes, there was nothing at all creepy that went on between Harry and him. It was completely parental. If anything, he kept Harry too much at a distance all along, I think. Harry needed more parenting.
 

---

Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
 
There always were rumors running around Hogwarts that "Dumbley" was a little light in his curly-toed elf booties. But saying that of a wizard is not too remarkable now, is it?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
I totally think she should continue to answer the questions that her fans ask, if she wants to. She was responding to a question and talking to a lot of people who want to know more.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Unless the series is significantly re-written there's no way this tidbit of information will EVER be as important as certain people both inside and outside of the Potter fandom will make it out to be.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

Actually, as far as I can see they are her books, her characters, and her privilege to say or not say what she wants about them.

---

quote:

---

It gives so much more depth and poignance to the Grindelwald subplot. How sad!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Yeah, but it makes all those tender Harry/Dumbledore moments just a bit, I don't know, creepy.

---

Why?

---

Well imagine Dumbledore actually being a head mistress and saying/doing all those things with Harry from all the books. Are you saying the thought would have NEVER entered your mind that Dumbledelores (sorry couldn't help it) might MIGHT enjoy Harry's company for reasons outside maternalism?

edit: Personally to me, Dumbledore being gay changes nothing for me. Even knowing he was gay, I don't think I'd pick up on any sort of advances towards Harry, Dumbledore has way more class than that. I too however wish Rowling would stop spontaneously blurting out details about here characters that she did not include in the books. I'd rather not reread the books through a different lense every few years because she keeps doing it. Write an encyclopedia, and be done with it.

---

quote:

---

Remember the biography of Dumbledore? There was a chapter making unseemly allegations about Dumbledore and Harry. I thought that was so, so strange in the book - out of nowhere, completely out of place, utterly bizarre. Now I understand why it's there, but I think it still doesn't belong in the book. It's just...I mean, of all the hard and dangerous things in the book, hints about allegations of abuse of our hero is a little too much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Look the only reason I can see it being creepy to some is that within homosexuality there IS a brand where an older sage like character cultivates sexual relationships with young inexperienced male adolescents.

---

quote:

---

Don't Maiar choose their sex? If they do, there's no such thing as a 'gay' maiar. I could be wrong, though...

---

The Valar have inherent gender, and the forms they take reflect this (in other words, their gender does not reflect their choice of bodily form; rather, their bodily form reflects their inherent gender. See the second to last page of the Ainulindale (the first section of the Silmarillion):

"But when they desire to clothe themselves the Valar take upon them forms some of as male and some as of female; for that difference of temper they had even from their beginning, and it is but bodied forth in the choice of each, not made by choice, even as with us male and female may be shown by the raiment but is not made thereby."

There's no explicit statement that the same applies to the Maiar, but the Valar and the Maiar are the same type of being (collectively the Ainur), "of the same order as the Valar but of less degree." See "Of the Maiar" in the Valaquenta.

There are numerous references to specifically male and female Maiar: Osse and Uinen are husband and wife; Olorin is specifically referred to as a he; Melian is the wife of Thingol; and Arien who guides the Sun is a "maiden" and Tilion was "he that steered the island of the moon."

I can't find anything that suggests the Maiar are genderless, and everything I know about Tolkien and his beliefs makes me think this is intentional.

[ October 20, 2007, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Eowyn-sama (Member # 11096) on :
 
Yeah, I'm willing to bet that Tolkien would agree with C.S. Lewis' theory (or at least the theory expressed in his fantasy) that masculine and feminine qualities are extra-physical and that the human male and female are merely an expression of these qualities. (See Perelandra and That Hideous Strength for the full explanation)

edit: I'm not sure what this has to do with Dumbledore, sorry!
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I was there
 

---

Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Foust:
Something like this could only happen in fantasy or sci fi. If an author from any other genre said something this random about one of their characters, they'd just get a blank stare. If its not in the text, its not in the story. Scifi/fantasy seems to work differently; the readers are more willing to accept that the universe extends beyond the edges of the book in a way that, say, Cormac McCarthy's don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
You really don't see it as a waste of your time, Tatiana?

I'd pretty much have to run screaming from Ornery, Hatrack, Sake River, etc, etc., etc., ad infinitum, to completely miss such things. This is the kind of thing they might even mention on the news, on a slow night.

I mean, whatever.

---

So instead, we should not think or talk about things that we care about, and consider to be worth our time, in order to spare you? Where are you going with this?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
They didn't get it totally accurate.
She said, "Actually I always thought of him as gay." or something like that. She said in the 6th movie they were to have some annoying part about Dumbledore telling Harry about some girl he liked, but JKR put a sticky saying HE'S GAY on the line.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
"So instead, we should not think or talk about things that we care about, and consider to be worth our time, in order to spare you? Where are you going with this?"

I don't care that much, for myself. I'd have said nothing if others had said nothing.

What's going to be annoying is if, in 40 years, she's all "Harry's a girl, Hermione's a house plant, and Dobby was Voldemort's love child", or some equally ridiculous stuff.
 

---

Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
 
While Rowling may write the books, we each have our own unique vision of the story. If you can't stand the idea of Dumbledore being gay then don't make him gay in your mind. I see nothing wrong with personally altering details that don't make or break a story. There have been numerous occasions where I've missed, say, a physical description of a character and haven't realized until I've already formed a mental image of the character. If this happens I generally just keep my own image of the character and toss out the author's (most recent example I can think of is when I made a main character a brunette rather than a blond because that was my initial impression of her). Dumbledore's sexual preference hardly plays a major role in the series, so it's not a big deal to ignore the fact that Rowling made him gay. In retrospect I think it makes sense in the context of Dumbledore's actions (especially from books six and seven), but it's not something to get distressed about if you don't like the idea.
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 

quote:

---

And I can't really see why Dumbledore being gay makes those parts of the book any more powerful.

---

Because he was in love with Grindelwald. Think about it. Dumbledore spends his life unable to find anyone who is his intellectual equal, because he's just so darn smart, and then he finally meets someone who IS, and he falls for him like a ton of bricks, thereby suspending his usually excellent powers of critical judgment. And then everything goes spectacularly to hell when Grindelwald attacks the family; Dumbledore then has to deal with the knowledge that the aforementioned suspension of critical judgment killed his sister; and later on, he has to go forth and do battle against the only person he's ever been in love with. And conquer him and lock him up in a prison all alone for the rest of his life. Because he can't decently do anything else.

Ouch. That hurts my heart. Poor guy.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Me too.
Poor Dumbledore. It's amazing that he became such an awesome person despite all the stuff he went through

Which is one theme of this story.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
If the suspension of critical judgment is based on Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald like a ton of bricks, I think it makes the whole recollection less powerful: it transforms a seduction by an appealing but ultimately evil philosophy into romantic desire overriding good sense, reducing a powerful theme of means and ends into an after school special.

Note that this objection is not based solely on D being gay, but on reinterpreting that as the reason for D's flirtation with "for their own good" justifications for totalitarianism.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
Dumbledore's gayness doesn't bother me. It's the inexplicable lameness of it all that is trying to one's patience. She clearly thought out which scenes would go in the books, and which ones wouldn't, and how certain scenes would be written, and did an excellent job of planning all that out. It was wonderful, though I wouldn't cry if she let OSC or Stephen King do a rewrite. I like her little world, and her story, but those guys have better writing chops. They know it, too, and say it, too. It's funny.

What she didn't think out was how to reveal the things that never made it into the books. She needs to hire somebody to advise her on that, preferably, again, OSC, or Stephen King.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Dumbledore being infatuated with Grindlewald doesn't really make the story all that more poignant to me than if the friendship had had no element of attraction.

And we still know very little of Dumbledore's life beyond the few tidbits divulged in the books. I hesitate to say Grindlewald was the only intellectual great Dumbledore encountered, or even was attracted to. We don't know. That way lies a thousand emo slash fan-fics.
 

---

Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
If the suspension of critical judgment is based on Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald like a ton of bricks, I think it makes the whole recollection less powerful: it transforms a seduction by an appealing but ultimately evil philosophy into romantic desire overriding good sense, reducing a powerful theme of means and ends into an after school special.

Note that this objection is not based solely on D being gay, but on reinterpreting that as the reason for D's flirtation with "for their own good" justifications for totalitarianism.

---

Which could very well be why she didn't put it in the book.

I think it's very common for authors to give characters backstory and details of personal history that never makes it into the actual book, but nonetheless may influence it.

Also, it's not at all exclusive to Sci-fi or Fantasy (as Foust suggests) that characters exist in a world beyond the words on the published page. Heck, entire English departments thrive on discussing the implications that the words on the page might reveal about the story's larger universe, across nearly every genre.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Something I loved about Roger Zelazny's writing was that his characters had lives beyond his books. Before he started a novel, he would frequently write long stories or even novellas about his characters that were never meant to be published, just to give them a history they could refer to.
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
I just thought of something:
What if all those uber-conservative Christians and ministers are now afraid the books will turn children into gay wizards
 

---

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I have no problems with her coming out with extra facts about her characters. All writers do it; most of us don't have the platform that Rowling has, so when we talk about our characters extra-literary lives, no one really pays attention.

Foust, your comments about this phenomenon in speculative fiction vs. mainstream fiction are wrong. Reworks have been done of Little Women, Les Miserable, the Phantom of the Opera, Gone with the Wind...

The part of her interview that bothered me most was her saying that HP could be taken as an extended metaphor for tolerance. I don't really see it.
 

---

Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
 
Oddly enough, I was thinkin gsomething similar when I first read this.

"Just great. Now the fundies have another stupid thing to take a pot shot at in this series."
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
It was one of those "innately evil and stupid fundamentalist Christians" who first introduced me to the Harry Potter, strongly recommending that I read it. Because she felt it was so good, and destined to be great.

Just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 

quote:

---

If the suspension of critical judgment is based on Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald like a ton of bricks, I think it makes the whole recollection less powerful: it transforms a seduction by an appealing but ultimately evil philosophy into romantic desire overriding good sense, reducing a powerful theme of means and ends into an after school special.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Look the only reason I can see it being creepy to some is that within homosexuality there IS a brand where an older sage like character cultivates sexual relationships with young inexperienced male adolescents.

---

And it's just as common with heterosexual men seeking out young inexperienced female adolescents. And, as we've seen in recent teacher scandals, it happens with older women and teenage boys as well.

---

quote:

---

The part of her interview that bothered me most was her saying that HP could be taken as an extended metaphor for tolerance. I don't really see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:

The part of her interview that bothered me most was her saying that HP could be taken as an extended metaphor for tolerance. I don't really see it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by steven:
OK, now does anybody see why I find it a waste of my time to have Rowling coming out with all this, in dribs and drabs, unpredictably, in no good order? These discussions could go on for years, and almost certainly will. It's largely pointless to even make clear definitive statements of fact about the characters and their motivations if this keeps going. I feel like I should have waited for her to die before I read the last book.

---

quote:

---

no one mentioned that the Secrecy codes were evil in and of themselves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

no one mentioned that the Secrecy codes were evil in and of themselves.

---

Exactly. As long as the wizards reserve for themselves the right to invade Muggles' minds and determine what they think and remember, the wizard society is based on a fundamentally immoral structure. The only one who ever questions this is Harry, and he accepts Hagrid's explanation without question.

---

quote:

---

Not once, in ANY of the seven books, did I wonder what his sex life was like.

---

Then it's awfully fortunate for you that she didn't say anything about his sex life (she said tartly).
 

---

Posted by Damien.m (Member # 8462) on :
 
"She was being sarcastic. She doesn't think the secrecy laws are bad at all nor does she want the Muggles to find out about the Wizarding World."

Thats your opinion. But I prefer to believe mine:)

Edited to add the quote. I thought it might be weird if I was replying to Fyfe's post.
 

---

Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
 
I don't see how the sarcasm works, exactly, although it makes sense, coming from her.

Why would she rather that Wizards/Witches become commonly known before than after Voldemort's disappearance?

Unfortunately, I can't locate my copy right now, it's probably under 3 layers of other stuff somewhere. My room's a bit of a mess.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

"She was being sarcastic. She doesn't think the secrecy laws are bad at all nor does she want the Muggles to find out about the Wizarding World."

Thats your opinion. But I prefer to believe mine:)

---

quote:

---

I don't see how the sarcasm works, exactly, although it makes sense, coming from her.

Why would she rather that Wizards/Witches become commonly known before than after Voldemort's disappearance?

---

quote:

---

I never really was in favor of a Neville-Luna relationship; I can see him wanting to marry her, but I don't think she'd have him. Her marrying a weird-creatures-finder guy is much more better, I feel.

---

I just picture the two of them rebuiding that weird house and living there together with her editing the magazine and him growing weird plants in the yard on his breaks from Hogwarts. The first person I thought of when I read the weird-creature-finder guy is Hagrid!

I don't care that JKR is revealing a bunch of stuff after the fact but I would rather her just write another book. I would love to read a companion novel like Ender's Shadow where we find out what happened at Hogwarts that last year. She could reveal a bunch of this info in a book like that.

I also don't really care if DD is gay but I do think she may be alienating some of her audience with that revelation. Not that it's right and not that she should make all her characters straight for fear of what people will think but it will certainly happen.

[ October 21, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: MandyM ]
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't know what the big deal is. I always assumed that Dumbledore was gay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makerofthings:
I think there was a reason she did not tell people about Dumbledore until after the last book had come out and the dust had settled. She wanted the work as a whole to be accepted and digested for a certain amount of time so that Dumbledore could be fully seen. THen when she told us he was gay, we already love and understand him. This is a huge way of underlining her statement of tolerance which is the main theme in the books. We have been manipulated. Do not underestimate this woman for a second! She is my hero.

---

Personally, since the Harry Potter series has -never- delved into certain aspects of the character's lives, I feel it would have been out of place and distracting in a mostly-sexuality-free series.


However, if your viewpoint is her true motivations, then it makes me think a lot -less- of Rowling. Waiting until the series is over? Waiting until she won't have to put it in the real book itself, but let it slip as a random comment? That sounds very little like a master plan to promote tolerance and more like a tactic to not tick off her publishers.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Indeed, I think better of Rowling than that.
 

---

Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
 
Me too.

Plus when I thought about it, I couldn't really think when she would have given us this information. In the first six books, we don't know anything about Dumbledore's personal life, because he's not forthcoming about it. Besides which, I'm getting the vibe that he's been alone his whole life (bless him), so the only thing we could really have learned about was Grindelwald, and we couldn't learn about Grindelwald until the last book.

So okay, she could have told us in Deathly Hallows (that would have pleased me), but honestly, she's been working on these books for, what, twenty years? You can see where she might not want to turn the culmination of all that work into the Dumbledore Is Gay Show, and might instead want people to focus on the actual plot with the defeating Voldemort and the proving me totally right about Snape in every particular.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
What's interesting about this is that it seems like the media is assuming that if Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, then Dumbledore IS gay. Had she written something about it in the book, then she could have chosen Dumbledore's sexual preference. But at this point, assuming she is composing no more Harry Potter books, her interpretation of the series isn't any more correct than any other person's. She can't make Dumbledore gay just by declaring it so any more than OSC could. That's up to the reader to interpret.

Having said that, as a reader, I have to say that this is probably the first time Dumbledore's sexual preferences ever crossed my mind. He could be gay, or maybe not. I'm not sure it really impacts the story in any way.

It does raise an interesting question about Hogwarts that I'd never thought of before. Is every teacher at Hogwarts single? Dumbledore seemed to be unmarried, but that never seemed in any way out of the ordinary because everyone else at Hogwarts seems to be unmarried too.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

What's interesting about this is that it seems like the media is assuming that if Rowling says Dumbledore is gay, then Dumbledore IS gay. Had she written something about it in the book, then she could have chosen Dumbledore's sexual preference. But at this point, assuming she is composing no more Harry Potter books, her interpretation of the series isn't any more correct than any other person's. She can't make Dumbledore gay just by declaring it so any more than OSC could. That's up to the reader to interpret.

---

Somehow, I just knew you'd show up.


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Had she written something about it in the book, then she could have chosen Dumbledore's sexual preference. But at this point, assuming she is composing no more Harry Potter books, her interpretation of the series isn't any more correct than any other person's.

---

quote:

---

"Had she written something about it in the book, then she could have chosen Dumbledore's sexual preference. But at this point, assuming she is composing no more Harry Potter books, her interpretation of the series isn't any more correct than any other person's."

Why?

---

Because fiction novels, or at least ones like the Harry Potter books, are not read to find out what is in JK Rowling's mind. A child doesn't normally pick up the book and think "I wonder what the author is intending to tell me in this." It's not like reading a letter or an essay where the goal is to accurately figure out what the author is trying to tell you.

Rather, a reader picks up a novel like Harry Potter in order to use his or her own mind/imagination. The words written by the author are the tool through which the reader does it, but ultimately the reading of a story is pretty much a matter between the reader and himself (or herself). Thus the meaning of the story is really up to how the reader interprets the author's words.

If there are some who read Harry Potter in order to try to speculate on the contents of JK Rowlings mind, then I suppose that for those readers it does matter what she thinks Dumbledore's sexual preferences are. But I would tend to think the average reader picks up a book for the reasons I do: To find out who these characters are, what happens to them, and to eventually care about them. In those cases the characters I am referring to are not necessarily the ones that were in Rowling mind as she wrote the words, but the one's we are imagining as we read those words.
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 
And, practically speaking, the reason why I think all that matters is because I'm sure now there's going to be a bunch of people on the political Right who will be unable to enjoy this series simply because Rowling claimed one of the most heroic characters is gay. I think that is a shame. They should not feel it necessary to withhold a great series of books like this from their kids just because the author's interpretation of it conflicts with their particular religious values. If they can get joy from reading it by interpreting the characters in a different way, that is more meaningful to them, I think they should.

[ October 22, 2007, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 
Practically speaking, the number of readers that probably have kept up with these after-publication notes is probably relatively small. More significantly, the number of future readers that will encounter these notes before reading the books is probably even smaller.

Thus, we're really concerned about the group of readers that have read the books, kept up with the notes, and are so disturbed by the notice that Dumbledore is gay that they enjoy the books less, despite that there is not much concrete evidence that any of Dumbledore's actions were influenced by his sexual orientation.

That is, they are so disturbed by the mere presence of a gay character in their reading material whether or not they act that way, that it has a profound impact on how they enjoy it.

I would say that people in this position have a bigger problem that just their ability to enjoy a children's book, particularly when they start reading about Roman, Greek, or Chinese history
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I don't think there are very many people who got over the whole witch and wizard thing who would then be turned off by Dumbledore being gay, speaking as someone who use to object to the witch and wizard thing.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MandyM:
the American version of The Sorcerer's Stone

---

quote:

---

Foust, your comments about this phenomenon in speculative fiction vs. mainstream fiction are wrong. Reworks have been done of Little Women, Les Miserable, the Phantom of the Opera, Gone with the Wind...

---

quote:

---

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MandyM:
the American version of The Sorcerer's Stone
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't that redundant?

---

My understanding is that The Sorcerer's Stone sold in Canada has different page numbers than the one sold in the U.S. I could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 
Ah. I didn't realize that Canadians were as dumb as US Americans.

My biggest hope and prayer about Harry Potter is that some fine day, they'll see fit to change the word back to Philosopher's in the books and movies in the US.
 

---

Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
 
No, we had The Philosopher's Stone up here. We have the same covers/paging as the UK edition in Canada.
 

---

Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
 
Who cares if Dumbledore was gay. He is a fictional character. His sexual orientation never had any impact on the story that I can tell.

Imagine the reaction of the gay community if Rowlings had said that Voldemort was gay!
 

---

Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
 
Uh oh, incoming Snape X Voldemort.
Now we really know how Severus convinced the Dark Lord of his allegiance
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

Who cares if Dumbledore was gay. He is a fictional character. His sexual orientation never had any impact on the story that I can tell.

Imagine the reaction of the gay community if Rowlings had said that Voldemort was gay!

---

quote:

---

Heck, entire English departments thrive on discussing the implications that the words on the page might reveal about the story's larger universe, across nearly every genre.

---

quote:

---

I should probably have said, "sequels or prequels that significantly alter the original character(s)."

Anyway-- the market for alternative/extracurricular information regarding particular stories is just as prevalent in the literary fiction market as it is in speculative fiction.

---

Sequels and prequels are new texts. What you're talking about is more like putting Rowlings comments about Dumbledore into the mouth of a character in a new edition of some Potter book.

And, again, what English departments do - unless there's a branch of literary theory I'm completely unaware of - is work with the text as it is. Yes, they hunt for the holes and the voids in the texts and speculate - but the text is the basis.

Again, assuming there's nothing in the text suggesting Dumbledore is gay, what Rowling is doing is basically equivalent to George Lucas explaining the differences in the light saber battles between the original trilogy and the prequels by talking about the physical limitations of the characters rather than the limitations of special effects in 1977. Lucas is going outside the text to add something.
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
Rowling says Cedric Diggory was actually bisexual.

Rowling says Gilderoy Lockhart was actually Korean.

Rowling says...
 

---

Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
 
How could a blonde be Korean?
 

---

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 

quote:

---

How could a blonde be Korean?

---

Underdone, Check the Popol Voh!
 

---

Posted by Joldo (Member # 6991) on :
 
Bottle blond, C3PO.

Cedric was bisexual. And had a fancy for young Gryffindors.

Good lord, he invited Harry to go to the Prefects' Bathroom with him . . .
 

---

Posted by the_Somalian (Member # 6688) on :
 
Come on guys.

Rowling SAYS...
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Dumbledore apparently had no romantic relationships in his life except for one unrequited summer crush when he was a teenager.

That's not gay. That's celibate.

If it was supposed to be a lifelong unrequited thing like Snape's, then he has appalling taste. What wise adult holds onto a crush on evil? Dumbledore didn't seem like that much of a fool.

To answer the above question: Bellatrix LeStrange, clearly, except for the "wise" part.

Thwarted or twisted love of all kinds seemed to have driven the complicated adults in Harry Potter. None of them got over it, either - they all apparently stuck to the love or the inclination that got to when still just a kid. I suppose that's a staple of fairy tales - "And then the princess got over it, met someone else, and only thought of the prince occasionally with bemusement or fondness once a year or so."

The exception being Robin McKinley's Aerin, and I swear on my life that's part of what those books so utterly great.

[ October 22, 2007, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
kat, I agree with all of your post except one nitpick. Celibate is not asexual. Celibate people are still either homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, they just don't act on it.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I agree. What I was trying to say was that possible objections to making Dumbledore gay from the imaginary opponents mentioned above might be different than previously described because there is a difference between inclinations and acting on them.

I don't agree with the above classifications, though. I think it is definitely more of a continuum than anything, so there are considerably more than three options.

Hmm...more than that, too, if you take the other dimension into account - how interested/invested they are in love/sex in general. So any particular individual's romantic interest could be graphed on a plane with the X-variable being gender preference and the y-variable being personal importance of romantic relations.

For Dumbledore, whatever the gender preference, it sure looks like the personal importance of romantic relations was pretty low. Whether it was native to him or else induced by traumatic experiences I couldn't say. If induced by traumatic experiences...I don't know - if the personal importance was high, I'm thinking he'd have found a way.

--

Thinking about it, the love lives of Harry's generation were a great deal more complex (and real, I think). Harry did have a crush and then got over it. Cho picked one of two boys she liked and was happy, but probably would have been happy the other way as well. After the first died, she tried to have a relationship with the other but wasn't done grieving.

Ginny had a hopeless crush on Harry and then ignored it to date other people. Hermione dated Victor before Ron, Ron dated Lavender before Hermione, and Harry was crushed on by a quarter of the school, like you'd expect. The previous generations' practice of only one significant other per lifetime is bizarre in comparison.

[ October 23, 2007, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
 

---

Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
 

quote:

---

The previous generations' practice of only one signifigant other per lifetime is bizarre in comparison.

---

I don't think we can assume that just because the books don't tell us about any past relationships by the teachers, it means they never had any. After all, the series takes the perspective of the students. When you were in high school, were you informed about the past romanatic relationships of all your single teachers?

It should also be noted that being single is different from being celibate. It is possible Dumbledore would have gotten married, had he found the right person.
 

---

Posted by Steve_G (Member # 10101) on :
 
I'm just glad she had the brains to not include it in the books. That would have been such a distraction to such a good series of books without adding anything meaningful to the story at hand.

The closeness between Dumbledore and Grindelwald came through quite well in the text and never once did I think they might be lovers. Not every close same sex friendship need be sexual.

Now had Reeta Skeeter been the one to drop the bombshell, that would have been different, because it would fit the outrageous accusations she's known for. Whether its true or not can be left to the reader to decide, but since most of the stuff she wrote actually did have some basis in fact it would be hard not to conclude that there might have been something more to their close friendship.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Lots of things are possible. We could spend all day imagining the untold details. I believe there is even a slightly-crude term for that activity.

--

In New York, Rowling said it was unrequited.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.

That's not to say that Dumbledore being gay would have changed the story or his character. I'm just saying that the book is where the story is -- not the author's notes, speeches, or intentions.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
For all you fans of New Criticism, there are other ways of looking at literature.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
It's almost like executive orders. Does it need to have "executive order" across the top to count? Just be signed by the president? Could it be the president's random remarks?

------

What critical lenses do you prefer besides New Criticism, kmboots?
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I think that new Criticism is a good tool, but it isn't the only tool. I believe that, within reason, there are insights to be gained by understanding the context in which an author was writing, relevant biographical information. and certainly the author's stated intentions and information.

I have no idea where you are going with the executive order thing.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
This: Leave it to Texas to stop executive overreaching

--------

Why do intentions matter? And when? If it mattered that much, it would have been in the books.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Christine: then he isn't heterosexual, either.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I suppose they don't matter to people who are exclusively New Critics.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
That's not an answer - that's a circle.

Why should they matter to anyone?
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
If only the text itself mattered to English departments, I would not have been required to read two versions of Great Expectations, or lots of critcism debating whether Shakespeare actually wrote shakespeare's plays, or whether Homer was a woman.

If you read Mark Twain's books outside of their social context, they seem racist. Taken for the times for which they were written, they are actually rather progressive. Luckily for us, he talked a LOT. It helps to illuminate some of his points more clearly.
 

---

Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
 

quote:

---

DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.

---

quote:

---

If only the text itself mattered to English departments, I would not have been required to read two versions of Great Expectations, or lots of critcism debating whether Shakespeare actually wrote shakespeare's plays, or whether Homer was a woman.

If you read Mark Twain's books outside of their social context, they seem racist. Taken for the times for which they were written, they are actually rather progressive. Luckily for us, he talked a LOT. It helps to illuminate some of his points more clearly.

---

quote:

---

And really, kat, I don't want to engage in pointless debates with you here either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattP:

quote:

---

DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.

---

Is he also not heterosexual, then?

---

quote:

---

The default position is straight. You don't have to specifically say that someone is straight. You do have to specifically say that someone is gay.

---

And if a derivative work is produced in which he is gay, does he then become gay for real, or is he still straight in original books? That would be kind of weird.

Unless Rowling has said that nothing would ever be written about that character again (and she actually follows through on that promise), it seems that she's still the arbiter of such things. The Harry Potter story may be finished, but there's fertile ground for a prequel that touches on many of the past events referenced in the HP series.

Suppose I had an imaginary friend as a child and I wrote a series of books documenting the hijinks that I got into with this imaginary friend. Later, though this was never mentioned in my books, I announce that this imaginary friend was black. Who are you to tell me "no he's not" or "white is the default." It's *my* imaginary friend.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Actually, I think the default position (as in factory original settings) is probably much broader than that, even on an individual basis.

That is, I think we are born with potential capacity for experiencing sexual pleasure with a variety of people (of either gender), objects or animals. The rest is largely socialization and exposure. Exposure is how we develop a taste for things, and realize what we like.

I LOVE raspberries. Can you believe I never had raspberries until a few years ago? I liked raspberry filled donuts and raspberry jam, but I'd never had real, fresh raspberries. I wasn't sure I'd like them, even though all signs pointed to "yes". I could go my whole life knowing I liked raspberry sauce, or some such, and never have a raspberry. Or i could try a raspberry and have it be sour or over ripe, and never know that I was really, at heart, a raspberry girl.

Either way, it wouldn't have mattered much to my kids, or the students mentor, or to whatever I've done.

Same with Dubledore. His preference was known to his creator, but not relevant to his role in the story. Seems fairly simple.

Not that I really care, but it is an interesting thought exercise.
 

---

Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
 
I'm curious. If she puts it in her (supposedly) upcoming encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, does it then become canon?

Or would any non-novel works not be considered canon? And if that's so, are the two charity books she wrote canonical?
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
It's funny that people are objecting to this so much. I think if Dumbledore had turned out to be a goblin or from France or almost anything else nobody would have blinked an eye. Why is it so controversial that he's gay? Of course he's Rowling's character and what she says about him goes.
 

---

Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
 
Tatiana, really I think most of the controversy is whether it's canon or not, since it was not in the book. I tend to think she's answering questions so yes it is, if she really was just blabbing no it wouldn't be.
 

---

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
 
I think this sort of thing is one of the strong reasons many authors don't approve of fan fiction. It's the author's story, and she gets to decide what is and isn't the case about the whole thing - regardless of whether or not it is now or ever will be in print.

Are we pretending that there's no longer any such thing as oral tradition?
 

---

Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
 
NO WAI
 

---

Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
 
Of course that isn't implied, mighty cow. We are just saying that mediums should remain separate, that is why The Odyssey could never be written down as a book.
 

---

Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivet:
But, see, the thing with Great Expectations? Do we take the published ending, or the one the author wrote that was not published, but he preferred?

---

quote:

---

If she puts it in her (supposedly) upcoming encyclopedia of the Harry Potter world, does it then become canon?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Christine:
DUmbledore is not gay. It was not in the books, therefore it isn't true. I don't care what's in Rowling's notes. If it was important, she'd have put it in the books.

That's not to say that Dumbledore being gay would have changed the story or his character. I'm just saying that the book is where the story is -- not the author's notes, speeches, or intentions.

---

See, that's the really big news. Rowling is a writer and knows full well that fictional characters don't have character traits outside what's written. So when she says Dumbledore is gay, she obviously means he has his own life -- he's real! And therefore so is Hogwarts! Boy, she's going to be in trouble with the magic authority when they read this post!
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
The only problem I have with that is the 'we' because I refuse to make absolute statements about the whole of experienceor understanding of everyone.

"I don't take [that] into consideration for x reason, and I'm certainly not alone" is cool.

"No one should ever take [that] into consideration because x authority says so and they/we know more about this than you do, therefore your opinion is invalid" is kind of creepy and absolutist.

Saying "As far as I'm concerned, this has no place here" is not as sexy as an absolute statement, but an absolute statement-- speaking for everyone without acknowledging reasonable dissent strikes me as irrational.

It's a very common and effective tool in debate, but it is seldom the whole truth.

(My reaction to such statements is almost always to think of exceptions, because that is just the way my brain works. I don't really care whether DD even had sexual organs, much less what he might have considered do ing with them, but I am enjoying the conversation.)

What do you think about the Great Expectations example?
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
I have to say, it feels different because while I thoroughly enjoyed Great Expectations, I'm wasn't invested the way I am in the Harry Potter.

What I think of Great Expectations is that the two endings give two different "reads" on the book and are two separate stories the author chose to tell.

Which is true? Neither. It's Dickens' stor(y)(ies) and interesting as a text and as a primary source for Victorian England, but Pip and Miss Havisham are not real and never were.

Harry Potter et. al. are, and that changes things.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
J.K. Rowling had the following to say:

quote:

---

"I think a child will see a friendship and I think a sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation," she said.

---

That makes sense to me.

I'm still thinking Dumbledore was essentially asexual in that he led his life as if romantic things were not an element. He was so accomplished and so good at everything - I think if it were important to him to have, then he would do something about it. That's true either way - I figured that he was like monk or a nun or pretty anyone who had an all-consuming passion for a subject that took the place of personal relationships.

And surely the infatuation didn't last forever - he's not an idiot. The guy was evil, and Dumbledore might be dazzled for a bit by the glamor but wouldn't give up a whole aspect of himself for someone ultimately unworthy.

[ October 24, 2007, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
 

---

Posted by Zhil (Member # 10504) on :
 

quote:

---

The default position is straight. You don't have to specifically say that someone is straight. You do have to specifically say that someone is gay.

---

His sexuality doesn't have to be a binary value. Consider quantum mechanics!

IF we assume:
(1) that the truth of anything in a literary work is intrinsically related to the contents of that work (IE If it ain't in the book, it ain't real!!)

(2) that the truth of anything in a literary work is isolated from external interferences (IE the author retroactively defining a character's sexuality)

(3) the possible eigenstates of a character's sexuality is from the 2-value domain {homosexual, heterosexual}

THEN:

Dumbledore's sexual state can only be described as a superposition of those two states!

Both reader interpretation and interference from the author can be considered an observation of the state, at which point the quantum waveform collapses into either one or the other eigenstate. This observation intrinsically changes the meaning of the literary work (IE everyone interprets stories differently!) and therefore are entangled within the story, causing interference!


It can also be seen statistically:

If we assume that 10% of the human population is homosexual, then Dumbledore, outside of retroactive definition, can be considered to have a 10% chance of being homosexual, 90% chance of being hetrosexual.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
I'm still thinking Dumbledore was essentially asexual ...

---

quote:

---

Cordelia: She's got the big puppy love! I mean, who wouldn't? You're handsome. And brave and heroic. Mysterious ...emotionally stunted, erratic, prone to turning evil, and let's face it, a eunuch.
Angel: Hey! What -- how can you -- I'm not a eunuch!
Cordelia: Angel, it's just a figure of speech.
Angel: Find a better one!

---

I can just imagine Dumbledore in the background of the conversation going "Hey?! Gay I can handle, but *asexual*?"
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
Oh, I really liked Cordy and Angel together. They were the most realistic happy adult couple in the Whedonverse, I think. Which is, of course, why they never really got started and didn't last - bad drama. Good couple, though.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
But with Great Expectations, one was the story the author wanted to tell, and the other was forced on him by his publisher. (I still enjoyedthe original ending I read best, but the his ending seems more real.)

I think emotional investment is the key, here, along with other people's visceral reactions to the gay. Nobody wants to think of the moral compass/grandfatherly figure as a pervert.

So, I kind of agree with Tatiana here. We may be talking about what is and isn't cannon (as if the HP books are some kind of scripture) but what gives rise to the discussion is more visceral.

For eample, everyone thought the lightning bolt scar was in the middle of his forehead until we saw the stuff from the first movie. All the illustrations up to that point had it in the middle, and the books didn't specify. But in making the movie she said it was to the side, and so it was.

There was some mild discussion of this, but nowhere near the Twisty McUnderpants uproar that has come up over this.

Me, I wonder if she woke up one morning and decided to make the internet explode. (Not really-- like Niel Gaiman said, I think she was just answering a question.)

But I agree with Kat's characterization-- I don't think any of that was a very big deal to Dumbledore, certainly not in teh way he defined himself (which I think Rowling made clear, too).

I think I would really be horrified to live in a world where people defined themselves largely by what they did (or wanted to do) in bed.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

"I don't take [that] into consideration for x reason, and I'm certainly not alone" is cool.

---

Absolutely.

To me, things are canon if and when I want them to be.

To me:

Lucas' prequels are not canon, and the force has nothing to do with microorganisms.

The Matrix sequels are not canon, and the "organic battery" explanation was incorrect. I don't know if Morpheus was lying or just had a really bad understanding of thermodynamics, because there were never any sequels to explain this critical plot point.

Nothing done by Herbert's son is canon.

The Silmarilion, made out of Tolkien's notes and put together by his son, is canon. So are some of the other books put together by his son.

Even some of Tolkein's letters to friends are canon. There are several contradictory explanations of the origin and nature of orcs. I prefer the one that says that orcs were bred out of elves, but that the big difference is that they have no souls.

---

In general, the more I love and respect the author and their universe, the more I'm likely to accept peripheral things as canon

As for JKR, I respect her as a storyteller and thoroughly enjoyed her series, but I have always found her world inherently silly and somewhat dumb. Which is perfect for children's literature -- it's not a dig. Really! But it also makes her world far less real to me, and makes me less likely to bring outside information into my Harry Potter world.
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
mph: And Hicks and Ripley get married and adopt Newt. Newt grows up to kick Alien butt. Alien 3 and 4 never happened.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
What about Predator?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I don't think Terminator 3 exists.
Since i haven't seen it, it doesn't.
But, in the case of a writer, what they say goes. They write the Gospel of the Story

Unless it's a bit stupid.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
mph: And Hicks and Ripley get married and adopt Newt. Newt grows up to kick Alien butt. Alien 3 and 4 never happened.

---

Yes. I pretend they are and AU when the hubby watches them.

MPH: It's almost scary to me how much we think alike, sometimes. I don't mean opinionwise, I mean thought-processwise.

O_O
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
In what specific ways, Olivet? I'd be fascinated in hearing.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Just not very informed my emotion, I think. YOu follow a train of thought very clearly, often devoid of optinion or emotion. Even if your conclusions are informed by emotion, you're very clear that it's a choice. Think first, consider emotion when necessary.

I think it explains why sometimes we upset people when we think we're just coldly stating a fact. For me, it usually happens when I'm trying to be funny- people's emotional reactions to things tend to surprise me, unless I know them well.

Or maybe I'm just in a "think" phase. I've always tested (even professionally) as an INTJ (very high on the N and the T, fairly low on the I and middling on the J). I've been thinking a lot more, lately, about why I am the way I am, is all. Sorry if that's TMI.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Thank you.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Freaking androids. I hate them guys.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zhil:
Dumbledore's sexual state can only be described as a superposition of those two states!

---

Oh great, so what. He's a hermaphrodite now?
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I guess what I meant was also kind of a "does it work?" kind of thing, where one thinks toward a goal, but has no problem throwing out something that doesn't work toward that goal, even if you like it a lot. It's a sort of mental ruthlessness-- something I admire and aspire to.

So, if the goal is enjoying a story, it's easy to exclude what does not make sense (at least in the context of the way you see things) or add things which allow it to make sense (again in personal context). Because we can't accept things that don't make sense to us. (At least that is what they say about INTJs, and I think it's somewhat true of me, anyway. I can't say I've been paying enough attention to know if you do or not. )

Scott: "I am Bender. Please insert girder."
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
I was reading about Dr. Who the other day on wikipedia, and he used to be kind of transcendant-sexual kind of guy, though recent iterations have him kissing and. It's puzzling, because I definitely resist the idea that the pure intellect will be untainted by sex.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I just wasted ten minutes reading comments on MuggleNet.

Oh my stars. I can't believe most of the commenters had the brainpower to learn how to type. *hugs Hatrack*
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I like the kissy-face Doctor(s), but ya'll prolly figured that out a while ago...

And yes, Hatrack is a bastion clear expression by comparison to almost anywhere else I've visited. Including mommy forums, populated by mostly well-educated new moms. It's shocking! (Plus, of the Blues Clues boys, who would ever think Joe was cuter than Steve? *small voice* Yes, most of us on mommy forums need to get out more.)
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I'm rather disappointed by this announcement but not because I'm bothered by a gay Dumbledore per se. You see, I've been mulling over the question "If Rowling were to write (or authorize someone else to write) more stories in the Harry Potter universe, what stories would I like to read." At the top of my list was the story of Grindelwald and Dumbledore.

A story, however, that involves a homoerotic relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald is so unlikely to have the mass appeal associated with Harry Potter that Rowling will never do it. It also is unlikely to be a story that would interest me.
 

---

Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
 
But she specifically said that it was unrequited. Which means there would be no homoeroticism involved. At most, we might see Dumbledore's admiration for Grindelwald go a bit further than you would have previously expected.

Still sounds like a fun read to me.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
Dumbledore having an unrequited love affair with Grindelwald would change the tenor of the story significantly. As Dagonee noted earlier.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:
If the suspension of critical judgment is based on Dumbledore's falling for Grindelwald like a ton of bricks, I think it makes the whole recollection less powerful: it transforms a seduction by an appealing but ultimately evil philosophy into romantic desire overriding good sense, reducing a powerful theme of means and ends into an after school special.

Note that this objection is not based solely on D being gay, but on reinterpreting that as the reason for D's flirtation with "for their own good" justifications for totalitarianism.

---

quote:

---

This is a story about how two extraordinarily talents individuals meet, become fast friends but in the end pursue diametrically opposed paths and ultimately must battle each other. To me that story is far less interesting if there is an unrequited romatic love affair between the two.

---

quote:

---

But I think the outing of DD probably DOES mean that story won't be told (at least not with the subtlty and ambiguity it deserves) and that really does suck out loud.

---

quote:

---

To me that story is far less interesting if there is an unrequited romantic love affair between the two.

---

quote:

---

A person growing up in a homophobic society would assume they were homosexual if they felt and admitted to a same-sex attraction.

---

quote:

---

Isn't that what's happened here? An unrequited crush as a teenager and Dumbledore is being spoken of as if he were actively homosexual all his life?

---

quote:

---

He is what she created him to be, nothing more nothing less.

---

quote:

---

Another awfully good British author, the late Douglas Adams of the successful Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy series, confronted a comparable question a few years back. One of his fans asked about the kind of computer one of his characters used. He replied, in part:

"The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number for you. It doesn't exist."

I'd disagree with that a bit. It does exist – in the minds of any reader who wants it to exist.

---

quote:

---

Odd coincidence in how he allowed children to read those books before Rowling announced that Dumbledore was gay, and banned them afterwards.

---

quote:

---

But last month, students found that their favorite series had "disapparated" from the school library, after St. Joseph's pastor, the Rev. Ron Barker, removed the books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate for a Catholic school.

---

quote:

---

In fiction, everyone talks about the importance of not messing around with time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Mad Eye Moody also hoots.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
The problem with "messing around with time," is that if you can travel into the past and change anything you want, then that makes you able to change everything bad in the universe, so you become morally responsible for anything bad you do not change. Being morally responsbile for everything bad in the universe is too heavy a burden. You would spend all the rest of your life trying to cease being a villain.

---

quote:

---

She added that, in her mind, Dumbledore had an unrequited love affair with Gellert Grindelwald, Voldemort's predecessor who appears in the seventh book.

---

Is anybody else wondering how exactly a love AFFAIR can be unrequited? I mean, it creates a lot of funny mental images of a voyeur Dumbledore, but I don't think that's what Rowling meant.

Tara: Well, if I'm not mistaken, Skeeter DOES make comments about Dumbledore's "inappropriate" relationship with Harry. Maybe it was a hint.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Rowling has made more recent remarks on the matter (posted down the page over at Mugglenet.com) ...apparently she -does- feel Dumbledore's support of Grindlewald was largely influenced by his unrequited infatuation.

Somehow, that disappoints me.

I find a Dumbledore tempted to do evil "for the greater good" far more interesting than "crushin' like crazy" Albus.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

I find a Dumbledore tempted to do evil "for the greater good" far more interesting than "crushin' like crazy" Albus.

---

I figure it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
Well, we have the author herself saying (in her view) that it was very much the latter. She goes on to say that children will understand it was just a great friendship, but that she hopes "perceptive" adults will get the infatuation clues.

See, I didn't notice the "crush" clues until she said they were clues. I'm not perceptive!
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
You know, this sort of announcement makes me question the politics involved. Perhaps I'm illustrating a bias on my part, but it reminds me somewhat of Ultimate X-Men, where the writers made Colossus homosexual. I wasn't surprised that they included a gay character-statistically speaking, chances are in a very liberal culture (such as a progressive mutant school), at least one member would be openly homosexual. The part that was strange was that it was Colossus. The biggest, strongest, manliest man perhaps aside from Wolverine was made gay.

I couldn't help but wonder if they weren't trying to send a message of some sort (particularly later when one of the only openly religious figures in X-Men to my knowledge, Nightcrawler, was made into a disgusting homophobe).

This revelation by Rowling makes me wonder the same thing, mostly because it's so very abrupt and most particularly not in the story at all. I also question it because, instead of writing it into a later story focused on Dumbledore, she tells us now, outside of her writings entirely.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
"Ultimate" Nightcrawler has never had a religious affiliation revealed...unless Kirkman has changed that in recent issues?

Some of the blame for his "evil" behavior was put on the things Weapon X did to him.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I was referring to his original background, Puffy, the one where he's a devout Catholic.
 

---

Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
 
"The part that was strange was that it was Colossus. The biggest, strongest, manliest man perhaps aside from Wolverine was made gay."

You must not be familiar with the gay bodybuilder stereotype.

But seriously, I don't see how this is "strange". Like you said, statistically speaking, certain characterizations are bound to appear eventually.

[ October 29, 2007, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: rollainm ]
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Kitty will be so disappointed.
 

---

Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
 
I haven't read this thread through, so forgive me if i'm repeating.

I feel that this... proclamation, is 1. Insignificant to the story and 2. Just a ploy to sell more books and encourage an eternity of English teachers to egg their students on the easter egg hunt to find allusions to D's homosexuality while they read the Harry Potter books.

My two cents.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Some gay guys are manly, bulky lunky dudes who lift weights and shoot guns.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I was referring to his original background, Puffy, the one where he's a devout Catholic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Dumbledore apparently had so little of a moral compass that he tossed aside, you know, all ethics and morality out of devotion to an unrequited crush.

---

quote:

---

Lily was perceptive enough to regretfully cut ties with Snape when he was falling into the dark side. Dumbledore apparently had so little of a moral compass that he tossed aside, you know, all ethics and morality out of devotion to an unrequited crush.

---

quote:

---

I'm dissapointed to find that Dumbledore was such a fool. Grindlewald is the Hitler of the Harry Potter world.

Lily was perceptive enough to regretfully cut ties with Snape when he was falling into the dark side. Dumbledore apparently had so little of a moral compass that he tossed aside, you know, all ethics and morality out of devotion to an unrequited crush.

---

Would that really be that surprising? Keep in mind we are talking about a very young, just-out-of-school Dumbledore - not the man he would become many decades later.
 

---

Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
 
If it was kept to a teenage crush, not really. See my second post on this page, though - as an explanation for why Dumbledore NEVER had a love life, it isn't flattering to him. I'd think the same of anyone who pined for an unrequited teenage two-month crush. Snape's lifelong devotion to Lily is really kind of sad, but at least they were friends from childhood and it was shown to us how much she meant to him, how she was good (worthy), and how Snape was directly responsible for her death. None of the above applies to Grindlewald (except for the death, but that happened after Grindlewald opened concentration camps (!) ), and Dumbledore lived a whole lot longer.

I always figured Dumbledore was above the storm and drang of romantic relations - that's the price of being a great wizard. I am quite dissapointed to discover that he wasn't above it after all - he was just really, really bad at it.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Sheesh.

Pick a username. Stick with it.

You're confusing the n00bs.


 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
I don't think it is that hard to be excited by a charismatic person with radical ideas, especially when you're young and full of yourself, certain you can change the world. But he didn't follow that path blindly, and was eventually the one who stopped him.

I really don't understand why this is a big deal. DD was not what you'd call a venal person, I think, regardless of orientation.

I would be very suspicious of the aged wisdom of anyone who had never made a mistake.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I don't think it is that hard to be excited by a charismatic person with radical ideas, especially when you're young and full of yourself, certain you can change the world. But he didn't follow that path blindly, and was eventually the one who stopped him.

I really don't understand why this is a big deal. DD was not what you'd call a venal person, I think, regardless of orientation.

I would be very suspicious of the aged wisdom of anyone who had never made a mistake.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
kmboots:

In the Ultimate universe, Kitty is dating Spiderman.

The Ultimate Colossus, Storm, Rogue, Nightcrawler, and Beast have NOTHING at all in common with their normal Marvelverse analogs.

---

quote:

---

Woah - I have no idea why my username changed there. This was all on the same computer.

ETA: It changed again! I have no idea why!

---