J.K. Rowling and the Dumbledore Sexual Identity Mystery

[CrystalShadow]

[snip]

I would say that, while the "death of the author" concept may be interesting from certain perspective, it falls apart immediately when applied to works that have significant world building, or even simply span multiple books. I seems somewhat arbitrary to declare that certain words from the author count towards our understanding of the fictional world, but other words don't. After all, that's all a book really is, a collection of words from the author printed on a page to tell us a story. Why should these words from the author printed and bound up into a single volume count, but the words from the author posted on a blog suddenly don't exist?

How do we know Harry has black hair? The author said so.
How do we know Dumbledore is gay? The author said so.
I don't think this second form of communication would suddenly become more valid if she happened to write it on a post-it note and stick it in between the cover.

I guess it come down to how you view a work. Me, personally, I view it as more of a contiguous body of work that is made up of more than just the text that is in the novels. After all, if a novel contains a map of a single fictional continent, and the author uploads a map of the entire planet, I'm not just going to close my eyes and stick my fingers in my ears and begin yelling "la la la la la la wasn't in the book, la la la la la all these other places don't exist".

When an author publishes a work, they are essentially giving you a glimpse into a fictional world. I don't see anything wrong with supplementing this world with additional facts that don't strictly need to be in the book.

Yeah, that's kind of my thinking as well. Reinforced by what I know of how a story comes into existence in the first place from my perspective as an author.

The story starts in my head. The book that ends up being written is a reflection not of the concept in my head, but of a specific section of that concept that (based on my skill as a writer) is what I consider to be the most interesting parts of that concept for someone else to read.

It's a story only in the sense that it is most interesting for someone else as a story. But to me it is a world.

And yes, why should we arbitrarily pick and choose which of the words used by an author count and which don't?
They all come from the same source, and there could be any number of reasons why some things are in the officially published books and some are not.

Why then are we arbitrarily drawing a sand in the line 'this is part of the world the author created' and 'this is not', when discussing something where all of it was said by the author themselves?

It just seems a little arbitrary, and puts a lot of weight on the publishing process itself rather than the story.
Because what is and isn't part of a fictional universe is apparently defined by how it was presented to the public, rather than who came up with it...

Obviously, it's possible for an author to change their mind, or contradict themselves, or revise what they said in the past. But that doesn't really change matters.
They can revise a published work just as much as a random comment they made.
Or declare a certain work to be 'non-canon'.

That in itself raises questions of it's own. Of course, usually when something is declared 'non-canon' the original author wasn't involved in creating it. But sometimes they were...
Why do people accept the author rendering a published aspect of their world invalid as something that the author is allowed to do, but feel that extra elements they wrote that aren't part of any officially published work have no meaning?

Just shows you how arbitrary things can get...

 

[renegade7]

I think I can understand why she might have been a bit terse. I imagine that this is likely something she gets a fair amount of hatemail for. Harry Potter's a series for kids, and there are a number of people (not huge, but still significant) who think that Harry Potter is anti-Christian, having a gay character probably doesn't help in their eyes.

For all I care, Dumbledore could have been straight, gay, transexual, a virgin (he is a wizard, after all), polyamorous, a BDSM fetishist, or an internet porn addict for all it mattered. At no point in the series did his romantic life or sexuality factor in at all to the story. That's a blank slate, and I see no reason why Rowling can't retcon in whatever she likes, or anyone else wanting to interpret it or fill in the gaps.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

snip

The basic idea that answers those questions is inseparability. At the most basic form, you are correct in questioning new methods of publishing and how their changes effect the idea of "text." As I mentioned, I have no idea if you could call a game's source code part of the "text" of the game, for example. Indeed, the ideas need to be updated, but overall, it is about every separate work. Thus, SW epIV stands alone. Episode V alone, and VI alone and they each are seen as separate texts. It is not that Darth is not Luke's father, rather than the identity is unsubstantiated. However, I'm sure that you are already thinking that they have been packaged together, and you are right, you are then free to interpret that as a single text. There is no better answer for you as far as I know, and this is a weak point in postmodernism.

snip

We have have had this conversation before lol. I must sound like a broken record. You are right that it is not the only theory, but for me certain points are vital. I do think Barthes goes too far, but if you think about how messed up our current media is, and just how many people are trying to manipulate it for their own narrow ends, postmodern media criticism becomes a very useful tool to stop them. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.

Besides, look at how popular The Big Lebowski is, and that whole movie is just one big postmodernist critique of modernism, so I think it still has some life in it yet. Though, you are right, my above response shows some weakness in the structure. Interestingly, applying the Derreda structure to gaming yields some odd results: the sign>signifier>signified structure doesn't break down, but becomes non-transitive. More like Rock, Paper, Scissors.

OT: of all the things to get your jimmies rustled over...I'd say her response was pretty appropriate

This is an opportunity to talk about things with a much broader implications, so I'm basically using it as an excuse to start a conversation. If you think it is a lame excuse, well you might be right, but at least we are having some fun here. Believe me, I don't hate Rowling, it is just that she rubbed me the wrong way enough to start this conversation, and since I'm down with a knee injury right now, I've got little better to do.

snip

There is much here to go over with you if you want. But, I don't think I am contradicting myself: Rowling has every right to make her arguments about her texts, true. However, what I take issue with is the attitude that asserts that her contextual arguments are effectively "true," or on equal footing with the text itself. This violates the right of the individual to interpret. It is an incredibly important skill to have as well, and authors should be trying to encourage textual interpretation, not trouncing it for their political causes, however noble. (And make no mistake, things like gay rights are pretty noble, though I hate to use the term.) The more Rowling states her arguments, more difficult it becomes for others to make their own interpretations, that is the issue. This is nearly unavoidable when an author comments directly on their own work, and this is why I say her statements have been thoughtless.

It is not that the author's interpretation is inherently more or less valid, it is the skill and social weight with which they can make arguments. Social weight being somewhat invalid, and skill coming from the fact that they are obviously intimately familiar with the text, and is thus more valid. So, authors should be listened to with great care, but they shouldn't make you feel bad for interpreting the text in a way that differs from theirs like Rowling did.

The techniques you talk about are most common now in minimalism, people like Raymond Carver writing enough for a novel, and ending up with a short story. Valve does this, too. Just look at Portal. Those things shared are invalid because they are unpublished. The reason I bring up minimalism, though it has its limitations, is that technique realizes the power of the audience's imagination and encourages them to make their own interpretations. This is now one of the major reason why things are cut: specifically to encourage the audience. It undermines this to then go back and release notes and explain everything away, because once you do that, the imaginations stops.

In the end it is never about being wrong or right. It is about acknowledging everyone's right to their own interpretation.

 

[Super Cyborg]

Wasn't the prevailing theory that Dumbledore was a pedophile? I thought that was a thing at least.

Here's the thing, the only characters we have established sexuality on was Who ever the three characters dated, and even then that proves nothing. The story was mostly about a wizard school where crazy things happened every year, and Griffindor won the dorm competition by last minute points. It's been forever, but the relationships were there more for drama.

All the other characters could be anything else. They could be Bi,Homo, Hetero, A, whatever sexual. All of them could have any type of fetish and kinks, and we have no clue what they all ended up doing in the future. Even the married parents could be different. They might be in the typical nuclear family, but one of the parents or both could be Bi. For all we know, Snape could be a Transgender, and was really in love with Harry's dad, and that his dream was to become the queen of England. Here's the thing, it doesn't really matter. The focus wasn't on the romantic relationships, but world building, and which people got along with others.

I don't see either statements being bad, but the first one seems pointless to ask, since you can probably find plenty of stuff online about her talking about it. A factor that doesn't really have a bearing on the story shouldn't be getting people to flip their shit so much.

 

[Fox12]

Besides, look at how popular The Big Lebowski is, and that whole movie is just one big postmodernist critique of modernism, so I think it still has some life in it yet.

Ah, yes, the Big Lebowski. I remember seeing that as a freshman, and the whole thing went over my head, haha. Me and my friends knew it was about something, but we couldn't figure out what at the time. I love the cohen brothers.

I don't think post modernism will ever go away completely, but it'll probably be replaced by something else soon. I watched a deconstruction the other day, and was able to pinpoint precisely where the plot would go, by virtue of it being a deconstruction. When deconstructions have become predictable, you know you've reached a new level of irony. I like some of the things postmodernism achieved, but I don't think it's enough, somehow. People are starting to notice the cracks.

There are a lot of reason for my distaste, I suppose. For one, I want to be a novelist. For another, I've studied with a lot of medievalists, who have rather... strong opinions about postmodernism, haha.

 

[CrystalShadow]

snip

There is much here to go over with you if you want. But, I don't think I am contradicting myself: Rowling has every right to make her arguments about her texts, true. However, what I take issue with is the attitude that asserts that her contextual arguments are effectively "true," or on equal footing with the text itself. This violates the right of the individual to interpret. It is an incredibly important skill to have as well, and authors should be trying to encourage textual interpretation, not trouncing it for their political causes, however noble. (And make no mistake, things like gay rights are pretty noble, though I hate to use the term.) The more Rowling states her arguments, more difficult it becomes for others to make their own interpretations, that is the issue. This is nearly unavoidable when an author comments directly on their own work, and this is why I say her statements have been thoughtless.

It is not that the author's interpretation is inherently more or less valid, it is the skill and social weight with which they can make arguments. Social weight being somewhat invalid, and skill coming from the fact that they are obviously intimately familiar with the text, and is thus more valid. So, authors should be listened to with great care, but they shouldn't make you feel bad for interpreting the text in a way that differs from theirs like Rowling did.

The techniques you talk about are most common now in minimalism, people like Raymond Carver writing enough for a novel, and ending up with a short story. Valve does this, too. Just look at Portal. Those things shared are invalid because they are unpublished. The reason I bring up minimalism, though it has its limitations, is that technique realizes the power of the audience's imagination and encourages them to make their own interpretations. This is now one of the major reason why things are cut: specifically to encourage the audience. It undermines this to then go back and release notes and explain everything away, because once you do that, the imaginations stops.

In the end it is never about being wrong or right. It is about acknowledging everyone's right to their own interpretation.

Fair enough. I can see the point you are making, though I dislike that concept immensely.

It's certainly not reflective of how I write works of fiction to leave whole sections of it deliberately ambiguous.
Ambiguity to me in this sense is reflective of the limits of my skill in getting a point across.
Not something I would deliberately try and add to a work, much less encourage.

I can't stop people from reinterpreting something of course, and in spite of what I said, I have no problem with them doing so if they are willing to claim it. (Say, fanfiction).
But I am considerably less fond of the idea of trying to leave the original work itself open to interpretation. Because it isn't. Not to me.
Any room for interpretation is a side effect of the limitations of language, not a goal.

Sure, even there there may be ambiguous points even then.
For instance if I write an adventure story about a girl hunting for treasure, it may not even occur to me to consider what her sexuality might be. But this isn't because I deliberately left this open, but merely because while I can build a world, there's a limit to how much detail I can reasonably put into something, and if it's irrelevant to the story, it may end up being a detail I simply end up ignoring.
Not for the sake of the story itself, but merely for the sake of my own sanity.

But then, deliberate ambiguity is something that annoys me in general.
Unless it is something which by it's nature may well be ambiguous. (because whatever answer you might be able to give is never going to capture the reality of it, but merely approximate it to some arbitrary level of precision)
But where there is likely to be a clear unambiguous answer to something, (even if not explicitly mentioned), leaving it vague on purpose just annoys me.
Leaving it vague because it's irrelevant I can understand and even appreciate, but leaving it vague with deliberate intent of leaving it vague?
No.

Which is why this concept irritates me as well.

 

[Charli]

The sexual identity of characters is usually thought of as heterosexual, this is not because people are being homophobic as some f***tards think, but because this is the norm, therefore if a character is not heterosexual we expect it to be said or at least implied in the work itself.

I prefer to see all the characters as asexual until other context is provided. As, whether they fancy the opposite sex, the same sex, both or other is irrelevant, until a plot point makes it relevant.

And, while I've never read the them, I'm assuming Dumbledore's sexuality never once came up in any of the seven books.
Which is probably why the fan didn't see him as being gay.

I mean, its not like the ending to the Legend of Korra, where the relationship was heavily implied, and later confirmed.

There were some extremely subtle allusions to him being 'close' with his male childhood friend later turned nemesis. So it wasn't entirely contextless, just not exactly in your face if you don't know where to look. Also his curious lack of any children or grandchildren despite being very fond of children in general.

They're REALLY REALLY subtle hints but maybe I was one of the few who pegged Dumbles as gay early on. The announcement only gave me a bit of satisfaction at having sussed it or even thought to think of it in the first place.

But I side with Ms Rowling on this, those who 'expect' homosexual people to act a certain way as to advertise it to the people who are straight as though it should be any of their business bother me, fictional or not. They bother me alot. And Dumbledore was pretty flamboyant in a few places. It shouldn't mean much, but...I mean really? I never pictured the man as straight. Maybe a little toward the start of the series but later on when I myself grew up and my world view expanded upon reading them again I was like 'that guy is jolly old gay man'.

Having it canonized or not is Ms Rowlings prerogative. For everything else, there is fanfiction. ...Millions and millions of fanfiction (dear god have you seen the harry potter fanfiction section?!)

 

[nightmare_gorilla]

I havn't read all the books but does dumbledore fuck anyone in them? no? then who cares. outside of simplistic social constructs sexuality has no real efect on a character other than who they do or do not fuck. without the fucking, discussion of sexuality is BEYOND meaningless.

 

[Therumancer]

Okay, let me spell this out for those who haven't followed it from the beginning.

Dumbledore was NOT gay to begin with, despite him doing things like wearing a woman's hat in the first book. Indeed Harry's first thought when looking at him was that he was utterly insane. Early on JK Rowling was confronted by various reactionary groups, including religious ones, for promoting witchcraft, and converting children into spawns of the devil. There were whole conspiracies about homosexual messages in the books, with a surprising amount directed at a very minor character called "Professor Flitwick" who was Harry's "Charms" professor with the implication hat this was intended to have a double meaning. In response to this criticism JK Rowling flat out said NONE of her characters were gay and that people were projecting things that were not there, and pointed out that despite the practice of magic all of the characters were Christian given that they all celebrated Christmas. This got some attention from the hindu community due to the Patil sisters being defined as Christians and their indian ethnicity, but nothing particularly big. For the most part JK Rowling dodged a big part of the SJW bomb there since this before it was quite so pronounced or aggressive. The point about all the characters being Christian is also one of the reasons why they were able to use a Cathedral for Hogworts, even if their first choice turned them down. In short JK Rowling got some good will from the Christian community for her statements despite some of the initial attacks.

When pressed on the issue of gays in her books JK Rowling at one point said that "if any of the characters in my books were to be gay, it would be Dumbledore". This lead to plenty of people pushing her on the subject and eventually due to the pressure she said "Dumbledore is gay". That said while she can declare canon and make a political statement to an extent, it doesn't change the fact that when the books were written there were no homosexuals and one had to really use some logical manipulation to make such accusations. In fact she said as much to avoid her first waves of criticism when she was just becoming big and had only put out a few of them. If you can't see Dumbledore as being gay from actually reading about the character or seeing him on screen it's not surprising because he wasn't. Indeed tonally speaking it was implied he and Professor Mcgonagle might have been an item, or at least wanted to be.

That said I've always thought it was kind of funny that the gay rights community just jumped right up to accept this. The reason being is that Dumbledore, at least in the books, is probably the most insane character in the entire thing. He's played a lot more "straight" (pun intended) as a wise old sage in the movies, but as I said, right from the beginning the guy was acting kind of bonkers in the books and Harry's first thoughts were literally that the guy was crazy, which he arguably is. While it wasn't constant, Dumbledore was also described as doing some weird stuff and picking some shall we say odd passwords (candy and the like) and such over the course of the books. Truthfully saying Dumbledore is gay is probably the laziest thing JK Rowling could have done, because he was the only character seen crossdressing (even if it was just a hat) in the stories to my knowledge. That said Dumbledore is written more seriously as the books progress, and closer to the movie version, so it's also quite possible that she's trying to disguise some inconsistent writing by saying things like that first scene were intended to foreshadow him being gay. JK Rowling is entertaining and I love her characters and world, but she is truth be told not the best writer in the world (but you don't need to be a great writer to entertain with your ideas... which she does quite well).

At any rate if you've ever wondered why JK Rowling gets some of the flak she does, it's because of how she's waffled back and forth over the years, and largely seemed to say whatever she thought was going to have the most impact, or cause her the least grief, right at the moment. Basically when she was under siege by Christians she said there was no homosexuality and that everyone was a Christian which is why Christmas was such a big thing, when the Christians chilled out and she was assaulted by early SJWs she came out and said Dumbledore was gay after an effort to sort of sidestep the question. At the moment her core works are done and she has so much money it doesn't much matter what she says or does, and with the last HP movie completed it's unlikely she'll be wanting to help film crews get access to castle-like cathedrals for exterior shots and shooting locations.

All very true if you look it up, I'm not going to dig though because this whole saga has gone on many years and should be pretty well documented even if it's fairly old. She has the right to say whatever she wants about her creations but in this case she can't claim she intended it the entire time.

 

[DrOswald]

Her response to the fan was inappropriate and thoughtless...

No. No, it wasn't. The fan was homophobic. Really homophobic. The fan was basically saying "I can't comprehend how a perosn with that personality and demeanour could be homosexual." The only reason you'd ever think of it that way is if you had some preconceived notion that a gay person has to look or act a certain way. That really is the only possible reason.

I'm not saying that any offense was intended, of course. But really, it's obviously inappropriate to publicly say something like that. It is not in any way inappropriate to tell somebody that gay people just look like regular people.

tl;dr: It is not aactually inappropriate to admonish somebody who makes homophobic comments.

I disagree completely. I think there are literally dozens of ways to interpret this, most hinging on what the word "see" means to you, that is, what it signifies to you. If she meant it literally, then yes, she would be implying that gay people have to "look" a certain way. But, it is likely that she just meant it figuratively, like not understanding a math equation and saying: "I don't see how we get this solution." It helps to remember that Dumbledore does not actually exist, and thus there is no "true" interpretation here, and more to the point, no way to literally "see" him at all, thus I assume the figurative.

Of course. I assumed that the fan meant "see" figuratively too. What I meant was that the fan still implied that there's something about DUmbledore -- something about his person -- that means that he can't be gay (in the opinion of the fan). And that's what I meant was homophobic: The idea that a perosn who is like Dumbledore can't be gay. Dumbledore's looks was just one example of things people might judge isn't "what a gay man is like."

I think you are wrong. Specifically, in thinking that what the fan said has to mean that there is some trait Dumbledore has or does not have that clearly signals him being strait.

Let's say someone makes a movie adaptation of terry pratchets guards guards, and in this movie sybil will be played by a black woman. On hearing this news I might say "huh, I can't really see that." Not because there is something about sybil that signals she is clearly not black, but simply because I have always assumed she is white and I am used to that idea. I am not offended at the idea, I am not opposed to the idea, but I am simply used to a different (and incompatible) idea and therefore have some trouble internalizing the new idea.

 

[Drathnoxis]

That was a well written post, your argument was very thorough. I definitely agree that once a work is released the author loses the ability to declare canon that was not explicitly present in the text. It's annoyingly common these days for people to appeal to the author in an attempt to declare their interpretation as the one complete truth.

I never could really understand the 'proof' that was given for Dumbledore being gay. Surely, the motivations of young Grindelwald and Dumbledore work perfectly well simply being close friends. It's not like they couldn't have been hesitant to fight each other for reasons other than a desire to get naked and perform obscene acts together.

Her response to the fan was inappropriate and thoughtless...

No. No, it wasn't. The fan was homophobic. Really homophobic. The fan was basically saying "I can't comprehend how a perosn with that personality and demeanour could be homosexual." The only reason you'd ever think of it that way is if you had some preconceived notion that a gay person has to look or act a certain way. That really is the only possible reason.

I'm not saying that any offense was intended, of course. But really, it's obviously inappropriate to publicly say something like that. It is not in any way inappropriate to tell somebody that gay people just look like regular people.

tl;dr: It is not aactually inappropriate to admonish somebody who makes homophobic comments.

I disagree completely. I think there are literally dozens of ways to interpret this, most hinging on what the word "see" means to you, that is, what it signifies to you. If she meant it literally, then yes, she would be implying that gay people have to "look" a certain way. But, it is likely that she just meant it figuratively, like not understanding a math equation and saying: "I don't see how we get this solution." It helps to remember that Dumbledore does not actually exist, and thus there is no "true" interpretation here, and more to the point, no way to literally "see" him at all, thus I assume the figurative.

Of course. I assumed that the fan meant "see" figuratively too. What I meant was that the fan still implied that there's something about DUmbledore -- something about his person -- that means that he can't be gay (in the opinion of the fan). And that's what I meant was homophobic: The idea that a perosn who is like Dumbledore can't be gay. Dumbledore's looks was just one example of things people might judge isn't "what a gay man is like."

It's not necessary for the fan to be homophobic to be unable to see Dumbledore as gay. They could have simply interpreted Dumbledore as nonsexual. This is a view that many young people have about their elders, and it's possible that the girl would have been equally unable to see Dumbledore as straight either.

 

[Yopaz]

But... she's not wrong. Gay people are people just like everyone else. I don't think her response was thoughtless, I thought it was perfect. If anything, the fan's question seemed a bit thoughtless, if not tactless. What was she meant to say: "Oh so sorry that your view isn't what I had in mind. Let me change my characters around to suit your purposes"? Fair enough to the fan, you can see a character in whatever light you want to, hell, some people see Dumbledore as a manipulative bastard. Her work won't be tarnished. And this woman has had her choices in her character's sexuality questioned over and over, in positive ways and negative. I'm not saying the fan was dumb but how tactless can a person be? JK has never hid that Dumbledore is gay. The question has been rehashed over and over that if you want to know the reasons why he is gay then you can just google it

What I want to know is what the fan thinks gay people look like.

Edit: JK has not actually treated her fans poorly at all, and she's always answered their questions over twitter, ranging from Dumbledore's sexuality to people of different religion. She's never outright insulted a fan. I don't see what the problem is here. A fan asked a question and they got a very simple, straightforward and true honest answer.

I agree with this. Her post may have been slightly condescending, but she also made an extremely good point.

OT: While I don't see Dumbledore as gay because there's nothing of what I've read that indicates it I don't really care. She may have seen Dumbledore as that all along and made some indication of this throughout the series that I have missed (I was young when I read it) or it might have been a matter of outing him as gay for publicity, but considering the series was quite popular then I don't really think so. Again I don't really care. Books are open for interpretation and that's a point where people will always conflict. I have seen people analyze the Harry Potter series and make it about religion or mental health. Books can be what we want them to be, but we aren't necessarily right and that doesn't matter.

Dumbledore being gay or straight doesn't concern me. People should either accept that he's gay or just pick their own version of that thought is unpleasant to them. I do realize I am asking people to be reasonable here and that is demanding too much...

 

[omega 616]

My question is, why aren't more characters in main stream media gay or even better trans?

I was at a friends and for whatever reason he had cartoons on. One was basically charlies angels (promoting strong women to kids) the other was about a bollywood girl and her adventures (promoting a ethnic equality) was pleasantly surprised.

Just need more of it lol

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I took her response as gay people's sexuality not necessarily being reflected in any aspect of the person other than who they like. As in, short of outright stating it, there is no real way to gauge his sexuality. Just because hes not flamboyant this person seems to think hes straight. Rowling pretty much said, sexuality is sexuality, which is entirely different to personality.
Don't see how this is a problem.
If the issue is that she wasn't polite about it, or she doesn't have the final say in her characters identity then I don't know what to tell you. I personally don't like how the internet, and the world in general, is becoming a overly sensitive hugbox. She could have told him to piss off and that what she says goes. I'd probably send her flowers if she did.

People absolutely have a right to interpret works of art as they see fit

Yes, but the authors intention is canon. People can feel free to draw their own conclusions but they can't say the author is wrong just because they have a different ideal.
I can, for example, see the Mona Lisa as a painting of a transsexual guy that the artist fell in love with. Of course, its probably not what the artist had in mind but that's my interpretation. Doesn't mean the painting is of a transsexual just because that's what I'd like to believe. If I went and asked Leo, he'd probably call me an idiot and tell me he just saw a cute girl and wanted to paint her or something. Not bow down to my beliefs and say it was indeed what I thought.

 

[EternallyBored]

I havn't read all the books but does dumbledore fuck anyone in them? no? then who cares. outside of simplistic social constructs sexuality has no real efect on a character other than who they do or do not fuck. without the fucking, discussion of sexuality is BEYOND meaningless.

Er, no that's not true at all, Dumbledore's sexuality and romantic interest was supposedly the catalyst that drove him to avoid and then confront Grindlewald in WWII, which is what brought the elder wand into his possession. Sans sex, Dumbledore's orientation can be interpreted as fairly integral to his actions earlier in his life. There are possible alternate interpretations, as a side character, the story prefers to focus on Harry and friends rather than Dumbledore's past, but the author offered the explanation that his sexual orientation was what drove his behavior.

None of these actions involved sex in the physical sense, but who Dumbledore loved and cared for does help inform and explain his actions and history.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I just think it's really stupid of Rowling to keep talking about her books like they're a work in progress. She had like a decade to write them down and publish them. Enough with the silly press conference reveals of "This character is this" and "This character did that". Lady, the books are out. Whatever you failed to weave into them is your fault, stop adding shit.

People do keep asking her questions about them, though, she doesn't seem to be just spouting stuff.

I havn't read all the books but does dumbledore fuck anyone in them? no? then who cares. outside of simplistic social constructs sexuality has no real efect on a character other than who they do or do not fuck. without the fucking, discussion of sexuality is BEYOND meaningless.

Er...what? So, all virgins are asexual?

Also worth noting is the reason this initially came up years ago was that the studio wanted to give Dumbledore a love interest(female) in one of the movies and Rowling returned a note saying basically no you can't do that he's gay. At some point this became a news item, so it wasn't something she just announced out of left field after the books were out.

Wait, what? Not heard that at all.

 

[FalloutJack]

Er...what? So, all virgins are asexual?

I believe the term would be 'unclaimed territory'.

 

[EvilRoy]

I havn't read all the books but does dumbledore fuck anyone in them? no? then who cares. outside of simplistic social constructs sexuality has no real efect on a character other than who they do or do not fuck. without the fucking, discussion of sexuality is BEYOND meaningless.

Er...what? So, all virgins are asexual?

Functionally, yes. Or at least they may as well be in context to a larger story.

People seem to find large books impressive, but if you took the time to include every irrelevant detail about each characters life then not only would all books be immense, but they would be basically unreadable. War and Peace is a good book, but it leans over the line of where that shit needs to be cut off - and in so doing becomes generally unpleasant for most people to read - by including details and descriptions on hosts of characters that do not really need to exist, or be explained.

 

[Lightknight]

Full Disclosure: I actually haven't read the series, but my understanding is that there's nothing in it to imply that Dumbledore was a homosexual. If there are hints for an attentive reader to pick up on, then by all means disregard all of the above and pay no attention to the guy who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

There were hints, but it was a children's book series, so I think a lot of people were either too young to pick up on it, or simply weren't looking for it. The original question was posed by a child.

Dumbledore's past is a mystery until the last book, and even then, we get the information from two unreliable narrators. What we know in the first book is that Dumbledore defeated an evil wizard named Grindlewald, who was basically wizard Hitler, in Europe in the 40's. We also know that Grindlewald stayed out of England, presumably because he was scared of Dumbledore, and that, for some reason, Dumbledore took his sweet time stopping Grindlewald. What we learn in the final book is that the two characters, in fact, knew each other as young men in their early twenties. They were constantly sending each other letters, and spent all of their time together. Dumbledore also ignored the warnings of friends and family who thought that Grindlewald was dangerous. The story never directly states that they were lovers, but it's certainly implied. There was then an incident, and Grindlewald had to flee the country.

Yes, this certainly hints at it.

My only complaint with this sort of increasingly more common storytelling in modern literature is that it robs us of basic camaraderie. Guys should be able to be close and even love one another as friends closer than brothers without it needing to be read into as being "in love" with each-other. It's kind of unfortunate that people can't just be close friends in stories anymore. They can't be 3 musketeers just willing to fight and die for one another, they have to be lovers anymore.

I'd have rather she was more explicit about it in the books to that effect. I have no problem with different sexualities, it's just that the persistence of this narrative as some kind of hidden twist is so common as to make guys distance themselves purposefully so as to maintain status as an available mate. The issue isn't that this mechanism exists, it's just how common it is that makes society assume that intimate yet platonic relationships suddenly HAVE to be sexual. Harry and Ron were friends, but they weren't intimate despite being best friends. Certainly not the same way females can be depicted.

What's more is, I no longer accept the "*gasp* they're gay together" or "*Gasp, the person in the mask is a girl!" as plot twists anymore. Yeah, people are gay and females can do things. It's no longer novel or surprising. It's just one of many facts of life.

 

[Fox12]

Full Disclosure: I actually haven't read the series, but my understanding is that there's nothing in it to imply that Dumbledore was a homosexual. If there are hints for an attentive reader to pick up on, then by all means disregard all of the above and pay no attention to the guy who has no clue what the hell he's talking about.

There were hints, but it was a children's book series, so I think a lot of people were either too young to pick up on it, or simply weren't looking for it. The original question was posed by a child.

Dumbledore's past is a mystery until the last book, and even then, we get the information from two unreliable narrators. What we know in the first book is that Dumbledore defeated an evil wizard named Grindlewald, who was basically wizard Hitler, in Europe in the 40's. We also know that Grindlewald stayed out of England, presumably because he was scared of Dumbledore, and that, for some reason, Dumbledore took his sweet time stopping Grindlewald. What we learn in the final book is that the two characters, in fact, knew each other as young men in their early twenties. They were constantly sending each other letters, and spent all of their time together. Dumbledore also ignored the warnings of friends and family who thought that Grindlewald was dangerous. The story never directly states that they were lovers, but it's certainly implied. There was then an incident, and Grindlewald had to flee the country.

Yes, this certainly hints at it.

My only complaint with this sort of increasingly more common storytelling in modern literature is that it robs us of basic camaraderie. Guys should be able to be close and even love one another as friends closer than brothers without it needing to be read into as being "in love" with each-other. It's kind of unfortunate that people can't just be close friends in stories anymore. They can't be 3 musketeers just willing to fight and die for one another, they have to be lovers anymore.

I'd have rather she was more explicit about it in the books to that effect. I have no problem with different sexualities, it's just that the persistence of this narrative as some kind of hidden twist is so common as to make guys distance themselves purposefully so as to maintain status as an available mate. The issue isn't that this mechanism exists, it's just how common it is that makes society assume that intimate yet platonic relationships suddenly HAVE to be sexual. Harry and Ron were friends, but they weren't intimate despite being best friends. Certainly not the same way females can be depicted.

What's more is, I no longer accept the "*gasp* they're gay together" or "*Gasp, the person in the mask is a girl!" as plot twists anymore. Yeah, people are gay and females can do things. It's no longer novel or surprising. It's just one of many facts of life.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The whole concept of the "bromance" came out of this. Harry and Ron were incredibly close, but no one thought they were gay. The idea that close friendships can't exist without being confused for homosexuality is, I think, an exaggeration. I like C.S. Lewis's stance on the four loves. Romance is one, but friendship is another. It's possible to love someone, someone you're not related to, without being IN love with them. If what you say is true, then we simply need to expand our concept of love.