Jump to content

Albus Dumbledore Gay?


Magpel

Recommended Posts

  • Members

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071020/ap_on_en_ot/books_harry_potter

 

 

I mean, not that it matters in the least. It's kinda cool. But it does raise an interesting theoretical question: Can an author just declare something about a character like this outside of the text? Is it "true" that Dumbledore is gay if there is not substantive evidence in the text and if even the most obsessed and astute readers have not sussed it out?

 

I say no. I was taught and I believe that what the author says a book means is utterly irrelevant to what it actually means. The text is the thing, not the author. Now, writers are burying ambiguities and implications in their characters all the time. Some will be discovered, some won't.

 

So J.K. is out of line here. If it has not been deduced from the text that Dumbledore is gay, than Dumbledore is not gay, despite her intentions. You cannot simply declare, extra-texturally, new information about a finishined novel. You, J.K., are not the boss of this story anymore, extraordinary royalties to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't think that an author loses the ability to comment on her work after it's completed. It's still her work, after all, and if she wrote the character with his sexual orientation in mind then she has the right to discuss his back story as she intended. There are many good reasons for a writer to hold back on details of a character even as those details inform the character's actions in the story.

 

I think, however, that she would lose her ability to complain if the the film-makers made Dumbledore straight assuming her hints in the book were vague.

 

I haven't read the books so I'm assuming a lot here but this does strike me as a wimpy way of stating her position. Why did she wait until after the book was finished, sold out and was in movie development before taking such a brave position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I don't think that an author loses the ability to comment on her work after it's completed. It's still her work, after all, and if she wrote the character with his sexual orientation in mind then she has the right to discuss his back story as she intended. There are many good reasons for a writer to hold back on details of a character even as those details inform the character's actions in the story.


I think, however, that she would lose her ability to complain if the the film-makers made Dumbledore straight assuming her hints in the book were vague.


I haven't read the books so I'm assuming a lot here but this does strike me as a wimpy way of stating her position. Why did she wait until after the book was finished, sold out and was in movie development before taking such a brave position?

 

 

That's fair. I guess it all depends on how you define the atrifact. I think of the "book" as the thing, and the book is more or less frozen once published. perhaps, however, HP is more of a multimedia franchise still very much alive and in flux.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Can an author just declare something about a character like this outside of the text? Is it "true" that Dumbledore is gay if there is not substantive evidence in the text and if even the most obsessed and astute readers have not sussed it out?


I say no.

 

 

You're not using the Sherlock Holmes method.

 

By ascertaining what's NOT in the picture, you can develop a better idea of what is. Since Rowling clearly stated that she purposefully did not include any references of Dumbledore having been involved in a relationship with a woman, as an author it is perfectly within her right to not state something explicitly and allow her readers to come to their own conclusions. Also, the fact that she negated the movie script that had Dumbledore express interest in a woman tells you this wasn't a spur-of-the-moment statement.

 

I believe she wouldn't have said that unless she had believed it regarding the character since his inception. Even though it went unstated in the books, I think it's fine for her to reveal this now (as long as it didn't contradict anything that was canonical, which it didn't).

 

So I say yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Kinda funny...

 

my bro-in-law (he's a gay English prof who sometimes writes on Homosexuality in Literature...wrote a book called "Queering Medieval Genres")

wrote a really net little paper on "Heteronormaitve models in the Harry Potter Series"

 

he opines she kind of half-asses the queering in general..damn straight chick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hmm, Jeff, I dunno.

 

How many sexy scenes is Snape involved in? How many of the adult characters in the stories have known mates or affairs of any kind? Not many by my count.

 

I would have been much more sympathetic to all the fanfare of this "revelation" if she had said something to the effect of, "I've always thought of Dumbledore as being gay." Then this would take on the qualities of Hemingway's theory of ommission--a central fact left out of the story that informs everything else form "offstage,", more as a heuristic tool for the writer, though the reader may or may not "sense" the fact that is omitted. Usually not, but it "operates" somehow in the story even though it is not "in there."

 

But JK has just simply pronounced Dumbledore gay, as if Albus is, say, real... and more importantly, as if she still gets to emend and control characters that she long ago turned over to the most appreciative readership in the history of the printed word. The characters belong to the readers now. If you want to tell me that Dumbledore is gay, fine--show me what I missed; how should I have known this?

 

My problem, I guess, is that I was taught by adherents of the "New Criticism" in college, and tend to believe the intentional fallacy:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_Fallacy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In regard to Snape, wasn't he dreamily in love from afar with Harry's mom? Wasn't the fact she decided to marry Harry's dad one of the key reasons for Snape's hate of James and then Harry?

 

So you gotta assume Snape's straight.

 

I agree though that considering millions of readers are pre-teens... this is going to raise some interesting family discussions that the parents may not have really wanted... How do you answer your 9 year old who asks, "what does it mean that Dumbledore's gay?"

 

This has already made international news... so I guess there's not much we can do about it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think it is important to recognize the authors statement; albeit after the fact (or fiction, as is the case). Her "lack" of description of the lifestyle of this character denotes no implication per se to the interpretation of the reader.

 

This leads to the most important process of the conveying of the story to the reader; the story as "interpreted" by the reader and the impressions as understood. Does the "fact," as conveyed by the author - - alter the story for the reader? And to what degree? I think it depends on the context of the story as well as the main protagonist and supporting roles of the other characters within the story.

 

I remember in college how the prof would be interpreting the "style" of a certain poet and deciphering the intentions and "trying" to get us to grasp what the "author" was trying to "say." Keep in mind that many of these poets were long-past dead and the impression of their work was interpreted posthumously - - - often many times over to the point where if you could magically re-animate the deceased and ask them their intent - - - s/he would probably say, "What the hell are you talking about, that's not what I meant at all!"

 

So - - - It is important that we recognize the "fact" as stated by the author (understanding that her statement is true and sincere) and apply it accordingly; but to what degree it "changes" or "clarifies" the story - - - that is left to the interpretation of each individual reader.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, I agree, it's really not important. Rowling saying it now is external information and after-the-fact, so to me it doesn't mean much. If there'd been a hot scene with Lucious Malfoy in the Hogwarts men's room, I'd be more impressed.

 

She's probably just trying to piss off the religious right some more, which is also fine by me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually this is a pretty interesting topic, I never really thought about what the fate of a book's character is once it's released into the world, and whether or not the author has control...

 

My only strong feeling is that not everything has to be stated explicitly in a book, any more than lyrics of a song have to tell the whole story. In this specific instance, I don't really care if Dumbledore is gay, straight, or has a loving relationship with sheep. I guess his gayness will be the subject of fan speculation and such, but honestly, I don't care whether someone is gay in real life, so I care even less if it's in a book :)

 

Besides, I like surprises. At the end of the Bource Supremacy, there's a scene that appears connected to the plot, where Jason Bourne tells Pam Landy that she looks tired, and to get some rest. It fit perfectly into the story, and made a good conclusion. But then I saw the Bourne Ultimatum the other night, and that scene was actually taken out of the middle of the third movie. I had no way of knowing that as I was watching the second movie, any more than I had a way of knowing Dumbledore was gay while reading Harry Potter. So it's kind of cool to get additional, "after the fact" information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Actually this is a pretty interesting topic, I never really thought about what the fate of a book's character is once it's released into the world, and whether or not the author has control...

 

My only strong feeling is that not everything has to be stated explicitly in a book, any more than lyrics of a song have to tell the whole story. In this specific instance, I don't really care if Dumbledore is gay, straight, or has a loving relationship with sheep. I guess his gayness will be the subject of fan speculation and such, but honestly, I don't care whether someone is gay in real life, so I care even less if it's in a book :)

 

Besides, I like surprises. At the end of the Bource Supremacy, there's a scene that appears connected to the plot, where Jason Bourne tells Pam Landy that she looks tired, and to get some rest. It fit perfectly into the story, and made a good conclusion. But then I saw the Bourne Ultimatum the other night, and that scene was actually taken out of the middle of the third movie. I had no way of knowing that as I was watching the second movie, any more than I had a way of knowing Dumbledore was gay while reading Harry Potter. So it's kind of cool to get additional, "after the fact" information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a reader is engaged he might believe he knows a written character.

 

I don't think the writer is ever really that assured. A writer knows the wiring. A writer knows how to test what he does know about a character. For the writer the character is as different or consistent as the morning coffee.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Actually this is a pretty interesting topic, I never really thought about what the fate of a book's character is once it's released into the world, and whether or not the author has control...

 

 

Fiction writers talk about this a lot, Craig. When you create a myth through a story, at what point does your god-like ownership of the characters and situations end?

 

Rowling can only express what her intent was with the character. If she left it unstated in the book, I don't think it diminishes her right to discuss her intent at any point... before, during or after the release. If she believed Dumbledore was gay while doin the writing, why not express it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

She's probably just trying to piss off the religious right some more, which is also fine by me.

 

 

That's kind of immature and stupid if that's true. And while I agree with Jeff that it's not inappropriate in general for an author to give any back story they want about the intent behind their characters, I think in this particular case it was kind of lame. I'm frankly pretty sick of society having to sexualize absolutely everything, even children's books. I think it would've shown more class to just leave that alone. I mean you wouldn't come out as an author and say out of left field: "HEY GUESS WHAT! This character was heterosexual!" especially if it's a children's book. So why bother drawing attention to a character being gay, when it wasn't relevant to the story?

 

It's kind of like when people start talking about Bert and Ernie on Sesame Street being gay. Like as if the 5 year olds who watch the show are thinking along those lines. They may well share a room with a sibling of the same sex or have sleepovers at friends' houses, it's normal to them and there's no sexual connotation around it at all, in either "direction". It's just a bunch of immature adults saying there is because that's all they can think about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was taught and I believe that what the author says a book means is utterly irrelevant to what it actually means. The text is the thing, not the author. Now, writers are burying ambiguities and implications in their characters all the time. Some will be discovered, some won't.

 

I'm with the Russian Formalists here. There is the fabula (the chronological series of events that are represented or implied in a fiction) and there is the sjuzet (the order, manner and techniques of their presentation in the narrative).

 

The sjuzet "belongs" to the author (subject to the usual caveat of the author being him or herself subject to cultural conditioning). The fabula, however, "belongs" to whoever reads (including, but not privileging IMO, the author).

 

If you're gonna call AD gay you're probably gonna have to call Obi Wan and the entire jedi council gay - is the sci-fi/fantasy community ready for that? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have some questions:

 

If a congressional representative is gay, but no evidence of it is ever entered into the congressional record, is that representative really gay?

 

Is "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" about LSD, or not?

 

If a tree falls in the forest, but there's no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

As for the issue at hand, I believe that creative works are about imagination. First and foremost, they're about their authors' imaginations; but they're also about the audience's imagination as well. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then it's perfectly legitimate for a character of imagination to be both gay and straight, depending upon who is doing the beholding.

 

In other words, "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds" works well as a song about LSD, even if the Beatles never envisioned it that way. That doesn't mean it is about LSD, just that it can be.

 

I say Dumbledore can swing either way. ;)

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It's kind of like when people start talking about Bert and Ernie on
Sesame Street
being gay. Like as if the 5 year olds who watch the show are thinking along those lines. They may well share a room with a sibling of the same sex or have sleepovers at friends' houses, it's normal to them and there's no sexual connotation around it at all, in either "direction". It's just a bunch of immature adults saying there is because that's all they can think about.

 

 

Precisely.

 

And while we're on that topic, it was also assumed that the character of Sherlock Holmes was gay.

 

Who cares? The books were great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sherlock Holmes wasn't gay. I think it was in "A Scandal in Bohemia" when you found out he could never love again.

 

As to Dumbledore...he's fictional!!!! Rowling could say he does it with a pack of wild poodles and who's to say he doesn't? She would know...she invented him :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I say Dumbledore can swing either way.
;)

 

Veering slightly off-topic, has anyone else noticed that bisexuals seem to be a dying breed? Who claims to be bi these days? Is bi a lie? Or do bisexuals, lacking the support groups that gays and straights have, simply try to fit in with one or the other of the more established cultures?

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...