The Dumbledore Discussion Thread

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:05 am

As everyone who does not live under a rock has probably now heard, during a recent Q&A session Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling revealed that Hogwart's headmaster [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm"]Albus Dumbledore is a homosexual[/url]. Predictably enough this has drawn a mixture of praise, criticism and disinterest from different parties. I'm fairly apathetic myself (perhaps Sir Ian McKellen could play him in the next movie?), but it's been a slow 'day after' so figured I'd start a thread on Rowling's latest revelation. So...
What do you guys 'n gals think about this skeleton in Dumbledore's broom closet?

And for all you US politics fans, I was just surfing the 'net after a slightly drunken party, and came across [url="http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/today/s_534762.html"]this little gem[/url].

Tricky · Post by **Tricky** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:15 am

Impossible, there was no handbag!

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:58 am

Why so much fuss over a fictional character?

It's not like this 'revelation' is going to affect the world now, is it?

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:25 am

I noticed the hints about Dumbledore's sexuality when I read the last book. J.K. Rowling has a way of creating mystery and provoking controversy, in part because she enjoys the resulting interpretations and speculation on the part of her readers. That's one of the things that makes it fun to read novels in general. But I am surprised that she confirmed that Dumbledore is gay. His sexuality just wasn't essential to the story in the first place, and I didn't think she would ever want to give the "secret" away.

You might say that sexuality in general doesn't play a big role in the Harry Potter novels. For one thing, they're children's books, and second of all, none of the characters' relationships plays more than a minor role in the story. It wouldn't matter whether Harry fell in love with Hermione, Ginny, Parvati, Luna, or anyone else. But that's partly because we take heterosexuality for granted. We take it for granted that most people fall in love and get married (Harry couldn't have been born if his parents hadn't been attracted to each other), so it's no big deal when the characters do that sort of thing. At most, it's merely interesting who chooses whom.

But when something deviates from the scheme of things we're used to, the earth shakes. Even if it only concerns a fictional character in a minor way.

It would have been very interesting if Rowling had spent more time exploring Dumbledore's feelings about Grindelwald. First the two of them fell in love in their youth, and then they became mortal enemies and finally had to have a big showdown. It's a shame that we only got a peripheral look at that, since 1) Rowling couldn't talk about steamy love affairs in her children's books, and 2) Rowling couldn't make it clear in the book that Dumbledore was gay because so many people would disapprove. It's too bad there isn't an "adult" version of the books that could deal with such mature themes. But that's a limitation we'll just have to live with.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:45 am

I was wondering if somebody was going to bring this up here.
My own reaction is basically, "So what?" Though, that is most likely because I couldn't care less about what somebody's sexual orientation is, fictional or not.

On the broader scale though... Dumbledore is one of the best loved characters in the series, as well as one of the most central, so kudos to Rowling. It's great she chose to introduce a character like this in a series of kids' books.

But she added that not everyone likes her work. Christian groups have alleged the books promote witchcraft. The author said her revelation about Dumbledore would give them one more reason.

Indeed, that was my first thought when I heard about this.

Loki[D.d.G] · Post by **Loki[D.d.G]** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:29 pm

Well, reading is about imagination right?

So, the reader can choose to believe what he/she wants to belive. Dumbledore straight or gay won't really make the world turn upside down would it? Or maybe some little kids somewhere in the world would want to try out the perks of sharing some intimacy with the same sex. :mischief: :mischief:

Sinister · Post by **Sinister** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 6:12 am

Suddenly thousands of children have the courage to admit their homosexuality, when one of their favourite characters is gay, it's ok for them to be gay also.
Even worse, heterosexual kids want to be like the cool homosexual kids who are like Dumbledore and they turn gay themselves.

Faberge · Post by **Faberge** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:29 pm

Oh how I wish I could understand irony and sarcasm. At least what most people call sarcasm or irony. The internet would seem so much more nicer and livelier.

As for the news, as shocking as it might seem to be to some, would anyone like a nice cup of tea?

Whether happy or not, Mr. Dumbledore is still the very same old bumbling bee, he was seen to be, in the very first book.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:08 pm

I don't know, guys, what kind of "hints" you’ve spotted in the last book or why some fans are so thrilled with the irrelevant "revelation" (does it really matter?). All these belated "revelations", while adding absolutely nothing, create a silly controversy that reeks of a publicity stunt. Rowling will be milking Harry Potter forever. Now she is planning to write her "Harry Potter Encyclopedia" which would include some “new material”.

You may rest assured that there will be all kinds of revelations about Dumbledore’s past and Snape’s heroic exploits, to give the omnivorous fans something to chew on.
Meanwhile, the authoress filed a lawsuit against RDR Books, a small publisher in Michigan. The suit claims that "RDR Books will infringe on Rowling's intellectual property rights if it goes ahead with its plan to publish the 400-page "Harry Potter Lexicon" on Nov. 28."

"I cannot, therefore, approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to pre-empt my definitive Potter reference book for their authors' own personal gain," Rowling said in a statement, released by Warner Brothers.

It’s all about money.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:44 pm

ve spotted in the last book or why some fans are so thrilled with the irrelevant "revelation" (does it really matter?). All these belated "revelations", while adding absolutely nothing, create a silly controversy that reeks of a publicity stunt.

She could also be intending it as revenge at all the moral high priests and priestesses in our cultures, who condemned the series for "satanism."

Waiting until the last book came out, then stating that one of the important characters was gay--when there's no evidence to this--really looks an attempt to cause a bunch of heart attacks among the hypocrites.

Mind, this may be giving Rowling too much credit, and it may be as you suggest. But either is certainly possible, and I think we agree that this postcript confession sounds about as impromptu and honest as an interview with George Bush.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:07 pm

She could also be intending it as revenge at all the moral high priests and priestesses in our cultures, who condemned the series for "satanism."

It is all so silly, actually: as if she was sticking out her tongue at a bunch of naughty boys calling her names. Or was it a bat-boogey hex?

I heard some Jewish activists are also annoyed with a perceived "Nazi connection" (a thunderbolt symbol was used on the uniforms of the Nazi SS soldiers, so they feel offended), not only with "witchcraft" and "satanism". So? Does that mean Minerva McGonagall is a lesbian?

I think we agree that this postcript confession sounds about as impromptu and honest as an interview with George Bush.

Yessss, we agreesssss.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:10 am

"Oh God, the fan fiction" sounded pretty genuine...

To be fair, she was answering a fans question about Dumbledore finding 'true love', so it's hard for me to see this quite so cynically (not disputing the all-about-money point). That said, there is definitely a hint of

about the whole shebang.
The Onion has [url="http://www.theonion.com/content/news/j_k_rowling_ends_harry_potter"]some[/url] [url="http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/rowling_dumbledore_is_gay"]nice[/url] [url="http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28009"]takes[/url] on Rowling and boys, Dumbledore's little secret, and creepy old Potter fans...

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:27 am

I seriously doubt that Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books "only" for the money. But if you're cynical enough to believe that she did, then couldn't you say the same thing about everyone else who has ever tried to make a living in a creative field?

My own perception is that Rowling spent a great deal of time and energy creating her story and her characters before she was certain she would ever be published. And I think she honestly enjoyed creating her imaginary world. There's a lot more involved in writing books besides making money.

For all we know, she probably envisioned Dumbledore as a homosexual before she even wrote the first book, so it was always there in her own mind even if it wasn't apparent in the books. Maybe she was dying to tell the world after all this time, and that's why she seemed so giddy about it.

She did seem rather quick to divulge Dumbledore's sexual orientation when the fan asked her whether Dumbledore had ever been in love. I mean, it wasn't necessary to say right off the bat that he was gay; she could have answered the question simply by saying that he had been in love with Grindelwald, and then she could have taken the questions that would have inevitably resulted from that revelation. Or maybe she simply decided to take a shortcut and pre-empt those inevitable questions. Come to think of it, I'm sure that's what I would have done. ("Was he bi? Was it just a youthful indiscretion? Was he cured of homosexuality like those Republican preachers who got caught having sex with male prostitutes?" etc.)

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:13 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:
"I cannot, therefore, approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to pre-empt my definitive Potter reference book for their authors' own personal gain," Rowling said in a statement, released by Warner Brothers.

It’s all about money.

Didn't that quote come with a part that said she would donate away the money she would earn on that encyclopedia?

Cartell · Post by **Cartell** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:15 pm

Personally, I don't really care at all. There were no major points in the story, at which this cam up, or at which point it mattered. Either way it seems to just be a publicity stunt, and or to piss off the christians who condemn the book for witchcraft. Either way it has no real value. Personally I subscribe to this statement, which I found in a article on the subject, (Not word for word, but close) "It's like George Lucas coming out and saying that Darth Vadar is pro-war on terror"

So in the honor of moment, I think Hermoine is a closet lesbian...

Moonbiter · Post by **Moonbiter** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 1:45 pm

Ode to a Grasshopper wrote:As everyone who does not live under a rock has probably now heard, during a recent Q&A session Harry Potter author J. K. Rowling revealed that Hogwart's headmaster [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7053982.stm"]Albus Dumbledore is a homosexual

Errrr... I don't live under a rock. Granted, I live ON a rock, but this has passed me by completely. Actually, none of my fanboy/girl/thing friends have mentioned it at all. Is this an issue? If she had portrayed him as an ole' lech in pointy slippers, brandishing a lollypop while drooling over young Harry, that might have been a concern. She wrote the books, and as far as I'm concerned this is a bit like George Lucas coming out and saying "Yeah, y'know, Obi Wan is actually gay. Didn't you notice?" Dumbledore can be as gay as a window for all I care, this is codswallop.

Lady Dragonfly · Post by **Lady Dragonfly** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:02 pm

Fiberfar wrote:Didn't that quote come with a part that said she would donate away the money she would earn on that encyclopedia?

No, it did not.

@VonDondu

I seriously doubt that Rowling wrote the Harry Potter books "only" for the money. But if you're cynical enough to believe that she did, then couldn't you say the same thing about everyone else who has ever tried to make a living in a creative field?

I am cynical enough to believe that people write mainly 1) for money and 2) for glory. In that order.
Rowling is no exception, in my opinion. Why would you think she is?

And I think she honestly enjoyed creating her imaginary world. There's a lot more involved in writing books besides making money.

Any profession involves more than making money. Both you and I enjoy what we do. However, we expect compensation, especially if we are good at what we do.
I am sure Rowling enjoyed writing her books. And her success (despite Pratchett's gibe

). And her millions in the bank.
She is also filing a truckload of lawsuits over her intellectual property. She even suied a festival in India.

A community group in India is being sued by JK Rowling for breach of copyright after it recreated Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry for a religious festival.

The group is accused of erecting a huge structure in the shape of the fictional building, where Harry Potter learns magic.

Scotsman.com News - International - Rowling sues festival over use of Hogwarts

For all we know, she probably envisioned Dumbledore as a homosexual before she even wrote the first book, so it was always there in her own mind even if it wasn't apparent in the books. Maybe she was dying to tell the world after all this time, and that's why she seemed so giddy about it.

Why? What difference does it make, now? If she envisioned Dumbledore as a gay, she should've honestly made it clear in her books, not afterwards. She said that she regarded her Potter books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance"; she chose NOT to reveal all this gay stuff in her books. Cowardice?
Or perhaps she was unwilling to jeopardize the mega-sales (that is if she really envisioned all this to begin with, which I seriously doubt she did)?
I think the "revelation" is pure sensationalism. Oh, and codswallop too.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:36 pm

Lady Dragonfly wrote:No, it did not.

This was the quote I was thinking about:
"I cannot, therefore, approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to pre-empt my definitive Potter reference book for their authors' own personal gain," she said. "The losers in such a situation would be the charities that I hope, eventually, to benefit."

Full article: J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros. sue over Potter book | Reuters

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:41 pm

Moonbiter wrote:Dumbledore can be as gay as a window for all I care, this is codswallop.

Well said, old man. I concur. Much hoopla over...well, nothing at all really. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I agree with those who believe that she added this dimension to Dumbledore for effect. Having read her books and being somewhat familiar with her style, that is the conclusion I arrive at. The target of her "relevation" about Dumbledore is only too plain to see: those who would be offended by it.

For the rest of us who are only concerned with our own sex lives and choices...we could care less.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun Nov 04, 2007 7:41 am

Couldn't resist it any longer...

Aww, c'mon, I'm sure Harry Potter and the Pink Dollar would be a great read.