Lunar Threads

...that Dumbledore is gay.

As a gay man I have only one thing to say: Since when?

I mean it's great and all I guess, whatever, but why now? Now that she doesn't have to worry about her sales suffering she "outs" him, as opposed to doing so in the actual books. I mean there was hardly any hint whatsoever. The few characters that had clear and obvious gay subtext got married off, and the eternal virgin and patriarch is posthumously made gay? Makes totally sense.

Whatever.

Potter fan thoughts? Anyone? I wouldn't mind seeing the heterosexual reaction to this news.

Doesn't bother me none, I just feel like it's kind of unnecessary. I don't really see what it adds to the story or his character (not that it takes anything away). I didn't really think of Dumbledore as gay, but I didn't really think of him as straight either. To me he was just kind of sexless. Maybe Jo is just really trying to get a rise out of the Fundamentalist groups that bash her for being "blasphemous"

According to the artical, she made him gay long ago but never outed him so to speak, but did tell some people about it, including directors to keep any women intrests out of the movies.

I don't feel it adds anything, and find it completely unnecessary. The books aren't about sexuality, so what's the point? And she said this was because of his regard for Grindelwald (was that his name?), but if he had no attachment to anyone else, which is kind of the implication, is one person enough to determine a preference? It sounded more like a crush to me, and people of both sexes have crushes on both sexes. So his having an attachment and attraction to his erstwhile friend does not really change his character from being generally sexless to me.

I do wince at the pedophilic fanfic that will ensue, or would if I weren't certain it already exists. And overall I think it's kind of a childish thing to stir up, although assuming the question wasn't planted, she probably didn't answer it with a grandstanding intent. She's mentioned planning to do an encyclopedia which would include the backstories she didn't use in the books themselves, and this kind of detail would certainly appear in that, I'd think, so it was only a matter of time.

Alunissage wrote: She's mentioned planning to do an encyclopedia which would include the backstories she didn't use in the books themselves, and this kind of detail would certainly appear in that, I'd think, so it was only a matter of time.

I think this is on a lot of people's minds right now. Whether or not she will include this detail in the encyclopedia or not, I mean. And whether or not she will expand on it.

It just seems ludicrous to me to bring this out now. It might have actually meant something to the gay community if it had a been a part of the actual books - not to mention it would've fit into her whole anti-bigotry theme - but doing so now just seems superfluous.

Not to mention this isn't the first time that Dumbledore's love life has been brought up to her I am sure. The fans have been discussing his relationships (or lackthereof) since Book 2 at least.

This seems more like an attempt to stir up interest now that the books are done as opposed to expanding on the backstories.

Maybe I'm just reading too much into it though.

It's kind of cool she did this. I care none either way. But too much was happening in the books you never really got a chance to think about romantic interest of the background characters.. the only ones that really mattered were the main three. But in the final book I kind of wondered seeing how close he got to him really fast. Well I think she only brought this up was because someone asked her a question about Dumbledore's romantic background.. so instead of beating around the bush she just came out and said it.

If you think it is retarded that she did that now, wait till you see the retardism that will come from the religious...

It really would have been overkill in the book itself, I think. I mean, the big thing about that last book was Snape's attachment. Why throw in this one to distract from it? And really, it was a pretty minor thing; the point was that Dumbledore had had some misguidedly idealistic viewpoints and was swept along by a charismatic companion until reality hit -- but not until after the damage was done. There was already enough going on without going into detail about the relationship.

Regarding what it would have meant to the gay community, I'm not very qualified to comment. But I wonder: in the context of a scene where Dumbledore is talking about the grave, shameful errors he made as a youth and the flaws in his character which led to them, would it really have been a desirable thing to the gay community for his homosexuality to be part of that context? Or would it be read as yet another thing about him which he himself deplored and hated? Do you want that to be the light in which such a revelation is made? And even if it had been mentioned in previous books, don't you think there'd be people pointing to that relationship -- which is the main reason all this Bad Stuff in his life happened, as I recall -- and saying, see, that's what happens with stuff like that? I'm not saying that'd be a logical reaction, just that it might not have been a good thing earlier on, either.

So I think that it wouldn't have been a great idea at any time in the series, the way she had the last book planned.

Heh, I regard this in the same way I regard some of Anne McCaffrey's thoughts on the subject of homosexuality in her writing that is extant to the books. It's fine, but it doesn't affect my reading of the books any.

Nonetheless, I can see the context under which such a statement would be relevant. I mean, she's asked questions all the time about characters' lives before the story, during the story, after the story, and as the author, she certainly had lots more planned out than she wrote. But including that extra stuff sometimes seems a distraction from what the books are about for me.