Dumbledore and the secret closet...

[Premonitioner]

I didn't exactly know where to put this but...

how do you HP fans (im not really one) feel about JK Rowling 'outing' Dumbledore? Color me surprised considering how some religious groups already respond to the books, heh.

ABC News

[ubergreendragon]

Must be the going theme for british wizards to be gay ...considering the jokes made about Gandolf in LOTR and the fact that the actor who played him really is gay....and to quote Seinfeld "Not that theres anything wrong with that"

But if she had revealed that fact early in the series one might wonder if the books would have made as much money as they did. Some people might have a problem with their kids reading about homosexual characters in a childrens book.

I think there should be more characters like that out there in books,comics,etc. they are people too.

[BentonGrey]

Bah

[bredon7777]

Doesn't bother me. Its a tiny part of his character, and not even close to being the most important thing about his character.

[stumpy]

Honestly, I could care less. Gay? Not gay? This is 2007. At this point, she may as well be "revealing" Dumbledore's shoe size - it's just so not a big deal. I have said for a long time that JKR could go anywhere with the Hogwarts' professors, most of whom (besides Hagrid)  have not been shown in any romantic relationships, as far as we have seen.

But, that said, it does seem fairly shoehorned on at this late stage of the game. Dumbledore was never gay in any significant way in the books, including DH, which had a fair amount of Dumbledore background material. It seems like, if she wanted to make him gay, she had seven books in which to establish it and she never did. It seems like one of those ideas she might have had and never developed. I am not a HP purist and I think it would be fine if he were gay, but I do tend to think that if what came out on the printing presses never established that he was gay, then Rowling missed her shot to make him so. And, of course, DH went into some detail about what was in Rita Skeeters' salacious, tell-all Dumbledore book and they never even mentioned this. To me, it's totally unbelievable that there could even be rumors that Dumbledore was gay and Rita Skeeter wouldn't have made a big deal of it.

I have said elsewhere that I would love if JKR wrote a series of prequel books, including early those centered around Hogwarts history (Gryffindor, Hufflepuff, etc.) and one of Dumbledore's earlier life. I would love to read those, whatever the particulars of the characters' love lives.

Ultimately, what bugs me about this is that, if I am reading the article correctly, some bonehead writer was trying to add a romantic interest for Dumbledore in the HBP script and Rowling corrected the assumption the writer was making about "the girl". Why can't writers leave well enough alone? Why do they always have to fall back on their boring standard templates for movie-making, which include a love interest for principle characters even if there was none in the source material? If I were JKR, I might have made Dumbledore gay just to throw a wrench into their uncreative plans. She probably doesn't want them adding silly, predictable BS to her characters' backstories like superfluous love interests and she knows they aren't going to risk putting a gay Dumbledore on screen, so she went this way to shut them up.

[captainspud]

*shrugs*

Doesn't really change the character. I like that she knew that about him, but realized that it wasn't an important enough detail to mention (and really, how would they have worked that in?) so she left it out. Far too often, ham-handed authors try to kludge you over the head with their attempts to show diversity, whether it belongs or not.

It goes back to something I read about writing years back: the authors should always know way, way more about the characters and their lives than the reader. When the author takes the time to flesh things out, it changes the way they write the characters. But just because you make a 2000-page character bible, that doesn't mean all (or even most) of it needs to go in the finished work. It's there if it's needed, but there's no need to force it in.

[Mr. Hamrick]

I don't see the relevance of it. 

And Stumpy, I think I read the article differently than you.  The reference in the script wasn't that Dumbledore is getting a love interest but there was reference to a love in his past in a piece of dialogue.  That is an entirely different thing.  However, you may be right and they may try to show something in a flashback.  However, I doubt they will. 

[AncientSpirit]

I've heard of people coming out of the closet ... but out of the book shelf???? 

I don't care other than the fact that if she wanted to make him gay she should have made it clear in the last book. when she was revealing everything else about D.    Seems cowardly to me to do it now.  On the other hand, since there was so much fan fiction out there that portrayed him as gay (which isn't a first since Kirk/Spock love abounds in fan fiction, as well) ... I just as well can believe that this is a last minute add-on now.   (Has the "note" in the last movie been verified?)

It's not that I'm calling J.K. a liar -- but she DOES makes stuff up for a living.   :rolleyes:

[stumpy]

i think that was kinda the point. she wrote it so that all the signs were there but never felt she had to come out (no pun) and directly say it because that wasn't really what the character's point was. i think she was effectively trying to say that the critical aspect of the character was that he was harry's mentor and a fantastic wizard. he just happened to be gay if you dug deep enough into his backstory to try to understand his motivations.

I agree with you ips. She had no reason to make it explicit because it had no impact on the story. I have no issues with that and I am not saying his wizarding robes had to be covered in pink triangles or anything. But, it seems like what some folks will be saying is, "Well, he was 'good friends' with Gridelwald. That was JKR sending us signals." I can't really buy that. Everyone has good friends who are the same sex. I just think that, if she were going to imply it, she should have implied it. I am not on the lookout for who's gay or not in the books I read because it doesn't matter to me, but I like to think I am a fairly attentive reader and I have read the whole HP series more than once. I'm a little surprised I never went, "hmm..." That's why I mentioned the Rita Skeeter book. I have a hard time believing that Rita Skeeter wouldn't have outed Dumbledore in a second if she had the vaguest inkling that he was gay. My (very minor) point is that JKR easily could have slipped in a "long-time companion"-type reference (to quote Seinfeld) and it's too bad she never did.

And Stumpy, I think I read the article differently than you.  The reference in the script wasn't that Dumbledore is getting a love interest but there was reference to a love in his past in a piece of dialogue.  That is an entirely different thing.  However, you may be right and they may try to show something in a flashback.  However, I doubt they will. 

Mr. Hamrick, that's how I was reading it, too, but I still think it's one of those Screenwriting 101 techniques for "fleshing out" a character to mention their romantic interests and it bugs me that anyone would fall back on that sort of hack when they are already dealing with one of the most beloved characters in contemporary fiction, and in a context where it can't add anything to the story or make him more compelling as a character. I don't mean that there is anything wrong with making someone's love life part of the story when it has some bearing on it or if it is part of why a character is interesting or charming or whatever. That's great. But I can't see how that applies to Dumbledore in the HP stories. In this case (and I completely admit I have no inside knowledge and I am making an assumption here), it seems like someone was going to add a throwaway reference to a past Dumbledore girlfriend and JKR shot it down. I am glad she did, mostly because I don't see the reason for having it at all, whether he was gay or straight or pescaphiliac (a la Troy McClure).

Anyway, I guess I am droning on about this, but "template" writing is just a peeve of mine. It bugged me when they decided there had to be a romantic interest between the principals in Jurassic Park because the template says that when a man and a woman are in a movie there should be sexual tension between them. It bugged me when Reed Richards was a romantic stumblebum in the first Fantastic Four movie because the template says all scientists are nerdy wieners who are tongue-tied around girls. And so on down the line. Ultimately, what apparently happened in this case is pretty minor, but it just sets me off to think about some script writer working on HBP, where the source material is already 650 pages long, and saying, "I know! Let's make Dumbledore more interesting by mentioning one of his girlfriends." The guy's a hundred-plus year old uber wizard; he isn't getting any more interesting because he had a girlfriend. Yeesh.

[Premonitioner]

It's nice to see that most of you took this pretty nicely since this news seems to have split the HP fandom for one reason or another. Ultimately, I think one of the most important factors in keeping that little tidbit out of the books beyond it not being needed for the story was that this book is generally considered a children's book and I think it was a good idea to "initially" keep anything sex related out of the books...but that doesn't really explain the later books where the tone was considerably more adult. *shrugs*

[stumpy]

ips, I actually agree with that. Most of the Hogwarts faculty have been written pretty much asexually throughout the books and it has never been a problem. I would prefer that it be a non-issue and I would have really preferred that Rowling had just told the movie folks that it wouldn't be appropriate to start adding love interests to any of the professors' backgrounds except where she has already done it as part of the story (e.g. Hagrid and Snape).

[Podmark]

As a pretty big Harry Potter fan I can say this doesn't make a lick of difference to me. Actually it kinda makes some stuff in the final book make a little more sense (which the article bring up). I don't really care either way if it was or wasn't brought up in the novel, and knowing what I know now I can certainly see some hints of it.

Also Spud I totally agree with you about the author should know more thing. And Stumpy I agree about the template thing too.

[Sevenforce]

Doesn't matter a jot to me. His sexuality didn't make him who he was/is, the books didn't use it to define his character, and he's still Dumbledore one way or the other. I completely agree with this:

It goes back to something I read about writing years back: the authors should always know way, way more about the characters and their lives than the reader. When the author takes the time to flesh things out, it changes the way they write the characters. But just because you make a 2000-page character bible, that doesn't mean all (or even most) of it needs to go in the finished work. It's there if it's needed, but there's no need to force it in.

Best books I read is where the STORY is what matters. Characters don't really make the story - look at Star Wars. Swap out all the characters and you still get an excellent story, whether or not Leia was really kissing that wookie or not.

What DOES matter to me is the huge explosion of horribly explicit slash fanfiction thats appeared. Oh the humanity!

[kkhohoho]

Swap out all the characters and you still get an excellent story,

It weren't for Star Wars characters, there wouldn't be anything redeemable about it, for there are far better stories out there.  You see, there's another element to stories: characterization.  Making a good story is one thing, but creating characters to make it more lively and interesting with good development that can hold the story up is another.  I'm not saying you need good characters to have a good story, but it certainly makes the story better and more enjoyable.

As for Dumbledore's gayness, I don't really care.

[Kommando]

I point and laugh because it amuses me to see the reactions of homophobes who suddenly have their bubble burst.  But other than my personal enjoyment, I think that she makes an interesting point.  Dumbledore was defined by aspects other than his sexuality, which is much the same for anyone regardless of sexual orientation. I dunno, one of the theories I read on another set of forums what that perhaps JK is contemplating a set of prequels.  If such stories did focus on Dumbledore, then yes his sexuality might need be addressed at some point.  Of course the fact the books would be directed at a younger audience might draw ire from the religionists*.  Then again, religionists don't need an excuse to have their ire drawn.

*by religionist I mean religious extremist, of any faith.

[Tomato]

Wait... people care about this? I'm sorry, but have they lost their minds

I'll admit I have yet to read the full article (my stupid firewall is blocking it under "news"  :angry:) but after reading through the posts... it sounds like stupd movie people wanted to screw with Dumbledore in the steriotypical love interest, and Rowling didn't like that idea. She says he's gay so they'll stop it. No more uninteresting love interest.

It's not an important detail, she probably won't make reference to it again (even if she does those prequels) and it's a convenient way to avoid stupidity on the part of the movie people. I call that a win-win