Dumbledore Gay

[Wilt Dasney]

But she's quite obviously trying to make some kind of social statement here, or else why bring it up at all? She might not be on a massive crusade to change the world, but she's obviously attempting to do "her part" in a small way to influence public thinking on homosexuality, or else she wouldn't have gone there at all.

She was asked a direct question about the character's love life. The statement was in context of a Q & A during a public appearance.

 

[sbkline]

She was asked a direct question about the character's love life. The statement was in context of a Q & A during a public appearance.

The fact still remains that she, as the author, has total control over that character. And she could have just as easily said that he is not gay. Yet she chose to answer the question by saying that he is gay. So we have to ask the question of..."why"? I have to assume that the following quote from the article posted by the OP answers that question:

Rowling, finishing a brief "Open Book Tour" of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said that she regarded her Potter books as a "prolonged argument for tolerance" and urged her fans to "question authority."

So there are two possiblities regarding this character:

1) She never made any kind of willful hint one way or the other in the books as to his orientation, and her statement in the Q&A session was, in effect, an after the fact decision to declare what his orientation is

or

2) She deliberately wrote hints into the story in order to get people thinking and asking questions, and then when the questions were asked, she answered the questions by revealing that he is, indeed, gay.

Either way, as I said, she could have just as easily made him straight. Regardless of whether 1 or 2 is correct, IMO, she obviously has some kind of social statement that she is trying to make by "outing" this character as a homosexual, and as the highlighted quote suggests, that social statement is "tolerance" (the modern defintion of the word, not the traditional definition) and by urging people to "question authority", in this context, I interpret to mean "question any religious leader or sacred text which declares that homosexuality is a sin".

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The fact still remains that she, as the author, has total control over that character.

I'm not sure many authors would agree with that. A lot of writers describe their creations as happening more organically, and look at themselves as conduits who just funnel them onto paper. I'm pretty sure JK has described the HP story much in that way, actually.


Buuuuut that's probably enough of a drift from the original topic, I'd say. :lol:

As you were, men. :wave:

 

[sbkline]

I'm not sure many authors would agree with that. A lot of writers describe their creations as happening more organically, and look at themselves as conduits who just funnel them onto paper. I'm pretty sure JK has described the HP story much in that way, actually.


Buuuuut that's probably enough of a drift from the original topic, I'd say. :lol:

As you were, men. :wave:

I don't see how that's a drift from the original topic at all. The topic is that of one of Rawlings characters being gay so I would think that everything that we've been discussing so far is very relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not Rawling is attempting to make a social statement would certainly seem to be very relevant to the topic of one of her characters being gay, as is whether or not the author has the kind of control over his/her characters that I think they have.

The only other option I see for a thread like this is it becoming a flamfest between those who disagree with homosexuality and those who then spew hateful venom at the "anti-homosexuality" people for being "intolerant bigots".

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I don't see how that's a drift from the original topic at all. The topic is that of one of Rawlings characters being gay so I would think that everything that we've been discussing so far is very relevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not Rawling is attempting to make a social statement would certainly seem to be very relevant to the topic of one of her characters being gay, as is whether or not the author has the kind of control over his/her characters that I think they have.

I agree that there's SOME attempt to make a statement here. I just don't think it's particularly blatant (or wouldn't have been without fan forums and the blunt instrument that is a 24/7 media). But perhaps the subtlety or lack thereof of this statement is of less concern to you than the fact that it exists at all...in which case my entire line of thinking will be of minimal relevance to you.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

The only other option I see for a thread like this is it becoming a flamfest between those who disagree with homosexuality and those who then spew hateful venom at the "anti-homosexuality" people for being "intolerant bigots".

You're not under fire yet, muchacho....why be the first to unholster?

 

[sbkline]

I agree that there's SOME attempt to make a statement here. I just don't think it's particularly blatant (or wouldn't have been without fan forums and the blunt instrument that is a 24/7 media). But perhaps the subtlety or lack thereof of this statement is of less concern to you than the fact that it exists at all...in which case my entire line of thinking will be of minimal relevance to you.

I think sometimes the subtle approach is the most effective. For example, from the point of view of a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin, which approach do I see as more likely to get results:

A) Go into Fred Phelps mode and picket gay funerals

B) attempt to befriend homosexuals and show them love and respect and treat them the way you want to be treated while "speaking the truth in love" that homosexuality is contrary to God's ordinances?

I certainly vote for "B". Or, homosexuality aside, how about evangelism in general? There is the blunt "beat 'em over the head with the Bible" approach, and then there is the more subtle "preach by example" approach.

Rawlings may realize that she might alienate too many people if she comes right out and makes a character blatantly gay and that it might be detrimental to her cause. So she may have felt like the more subtle approach would be more effective in trying to sway opinion on the homosexual issue.

 

[sbkline]

You're not under fire yet, muchacho....why be the first to unholster?

I didn't think I was. I was just saying that threads like this often degenerate into flamefests.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

*goes back to read Dumbledore's funeral chapter to look for Fred Phelps* :lookaroun

 

[sbkline]

*goes back to read Dumbledore's funeral chapter to look for Fred Phelps* :lookaroun

:ROFLOL:

Well, it's been a good discussion, but I must be hitting the hay soon. Have a good night.

 

[Number_6]

Just to interject my own thoughts here, the "tolerance" that she was referring to originally had more to do with the portrayal of Voldemort as a very Hitler like figure. A man who rose to great power in his society on a platform of purification of the master race. In Voldemort's case, it was the pure blood wizarding families that were the Masters from his point of view. All others were imperfect and should either be serving or be cleansed. That's why the whole dynamic of Draco and the other Slytherins referring to Hermione as a "mudblood" was introduced. To show the intolerance that Voldemort preached and that the Death Eaters followed. It only got worse as Voldemort returned to power and his followers gained a foothold in the Ministry of Magic.

As far as Dumbledore being gay, it wasn't necessary to say it in the book. Not because it's something that she came up with later, but because it was hinted at quite a bit as you find out about his time that he spent with Gellert Grindlewald as a young man. I don't want to go into too much detail, but it did come across to me as being a strong possibility when I read it, I just wasn't certain until JKR went and answered that young readers question about true love.

And even if we hadn't found out for certain about Dumbledore's preferences now, we would have eventually when JKR releases the big book of Harry Potter info, "Harry Potter and the Department of Backstory" or whatever the title is supposed to be.

 

[unkadug]

Pringles anyone?

Thanks! :wave: How about some popcorn?

 

[Laura]

I really don't think I wanted to know that about Dumbledore...

That sums up how I feel.

Gay or straight, I didn't want anything "sexual" associated with Dumbledore in my mind! :hurl:

Of course this news comes out right before my second dive into Half-Blood Prince.

It kind of taints the relationship between Dumbledore and Harry for me. It gives me the same kind of feeling that I'd get if Dumbledore was a straight guy and he spent a lot of quality time with Hermione instead of Harry. Maybe I watch too much Predator on MSNBC.

I think I'm going to finish reading these books the second time the same way I read them the first time - not considering Dumbledore's sexuality at all.

 

[The Mom]

I guess it depends upon how much underlying meaning you're looking for in a story, and whether or not you think an author is sublimingly presenting a specific point of view about certain groups of people?

Did anyone else notice that she rarely mentions weight unless she's describing "evil" characters? Harry's aunt, uncle, and cousin, for example. The horrid witch who becomes headmistress briefly (I can't remember her name) is another that comes to mind.

Other evil characters are mentioned as being unusually thin, also. So do you think she was promoting a certain point of view? Maybe someone should ask her about it. :animwink:

As I mentioned, I never thought about Dumbledore's love life at all....and most children wouldn't, either. In retrospect, I can think of many people who were probably gay, but I really didn't notice it growing up, unless their behavior or dress was completely out of the norm. (Men or women who could be mistaken for the opposite gender, for example)


This reminds me of the Bert & Ernie "orientation" question way back when. Perhaps Rowling should have followed Jim Henson's lead and answered "They're just characters in a story!" (Henson said, "They're just puppets!") :lol:


BTW, many of us could write this whole discussion, as we've read it so many times before. The usual group of posters will present their religious viewpoint, while the other group will present their sociological viewpoint, things will get heated, and the thread will be locked.

I believe if you do a search on "gay" you'll find every argument ever presented on the topic. So, as I mentioned, unless someone has anything NEW to add to the topic (which I highly doubt) I'm putting this baby to bed.

 

[maggiegrace1]

Pringles anyone?

:lol:

I adore you...:kiss:
But you know that already..:animwink:

 

[Pongo]

Yes, he's a fictional character of a fictional book. But most people realize that when an author writes a book, or when a producer films a TV show, etc, he has certain values that he is trying to promote with his story. If, for example, a gay character is presented as being the stereotypical flamboyant, femine type, then it's most likely that the person writing the story dissapproves of homosexuality and is attempting to convey that with the way he portrays his fictional, gay character.

However, if the gay character in question is portrayed in a different way, then it could be just as obvious that the author intends to express his or her belief that homosexuality is normal and acceptable and is using his book or TV show, or whatever as his means of trying to convey that message.

In this case, according to the article and Rawlings' own words, it seems that she made this character gay in an attempt to help teach the readers "tolerance", which translated means trying to influence her readers to embrace homosexuality.

So it's never so simple as just brushing it off as merely a fictional chracter in a book, whether were talking about a gay character or a character who is not gay. The stories people write are written with a certain values system in mind and are a means to express said values system and influence others to change their way of thinking. For example, one could write a story with fictional character who is a child molester. If the character gets his comeupance and pays the penalty for his actions, then it is obvious that the "moral of the story" is that child molestation is wrong. However, if the child molester is the hero of the story and is a well respected character, then obviously, the author is trying to say that it is okay to molest children and is using that book and that character as his means of changing public opinion regarding child molestation. I really doubt we'll ever see such a character, but I use that absurd hypothetical character to illustrate my point.

Having said that, I must admit that I am disturbed by this because I don't approve of homosexuality and I disagree with any attempt to portray it as normal and acceptable. I know I am in the minority and many others will disagree, and that's what a discussion board is all about: the exchange of ideas. But that is my opinion on the subject for whatever it's worth.

Hmm, I think I disagree with you. Rowling wasn't telling HER story in the Harry Potter books. She was telling the CHARACTERS' stories, complete with the characters' lifestyles, opinions, and actions. They don't necessarily make them HER lifestyles, opinions, or actions. Because she's writing about homosexuality (in a way that you can't even tell at that) doesn't necessarily mean she's approving of it or promoting it. Or maybe she is. Or maybe she's just promoting tolerance in general.

If an author write about something like suicide or murder does that mean they approve of either? Drugs? Rape?

The whole creative process is about making something up -- not necessarily what you believe, just what comes out.

As for me, I don't really view Dumbledore as gay. More asexual than anything. That's how I read it and that's how I'm going to continue reading it. I don't need JKR to tell me something extra if the story works fine the way she didn't necessarily intend it to be read.

 

[michaelcostella]

It really bothers me that this is front page news. Its a fictional character and some people are acting like this announcement is a big deal when there are more important things that are real going on in the world.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

:lookaroun:hurl:

Harry Potter and the Closet of Secrets.

I really don't think I wanted to know that about Dumbledore...

Maybe she's not making any sort of statement at all, but just gave that aspect to Dumbledore to make him seem more flawed and with more troubles or somthing like that.

Either way, it still puts a lot of unwanted images in my head. :lol:

EDIT: Or then again, maybe in a few weeks time Rowling will say "I was just kidding! That sure got your chat groups going didn't it?" :lol: :lookaroun

Yeah,same here...I really didn't wanna think about Dumbledore that way either.Not that there's anything wrong with that...![/Sienfeld]

Eh.Kinda funny that this was actually in the paper though.

 

[lilclerk]

I'm with number_6, I assumed it when we found out about his "friendship" with Grindelwald. It's hard to see Dumbledore doing things like that "for the greater good," but if it's in the name of love... well, we all do crazy things for love. :shrug:

But it really shouldn't be headline news. Kinda sad.

 

[WildcatDen]

It all makes sense now. . .

Word Scrambled "Dumbledore" yields the term Buddle More which is the Yiddish translation of the ancient Egyptian practice of Group Johny Spanking. . .



:snore: