Shocking revelation?

[Lith]

Because it worked so well for Hollywood during the studio years...

 

[McMurphy]

Tongue Firmly in Cheek (so relax)

I saw this on the news, so I think the intended goal has been reached: attention. A part of me---the good natured side---wishes to applaud the inclusion of gay characters in all ages literature without making the sexuality an overt center of literary events.

But then the more realistic side (okay, I will play along: the more cynical side) of me wakes up. Dumbledore wasn't gay in the series. Only after the books have been published and the sales secured did his outing come into place. It is misleading for her to attempt to take credit for such a socially relevant inclusion. If the announcement really is due to an attempt by the author to keep her name in the headlines, then this is a sad warning for the Harry Potter legacy.

Has anyone seen any evidence outside of her own claim that she is bringing it up due to a script correction? Her words in this interview is all I see. Not that I am saying that one must instantly disregard the merit of her own words in an interview, but it wouldn't be the first time she has misled fans and reporters in interviews. Her claims to a life of poverty prior to the book releases, to my understanding, has been greatly exaggerated (but that is not entirely her fault).

Besides, if authors now decide to just make up alterations about characters and events after the series has been finished without writing new material, what stops her from waking up one morning, getting a tea buzz, and announcing that all the Harry Potter characters were gay and are secretly illegal immigrants who fight international terrorism?

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

First, I agree with the Chronics who said that this revelation resembles another coup de théâtre to maintain interest in the HP phenomenon. Second, like others, I add that I couldn't care less about Dumbledore's homosexuality. And, third, I also find this declaration a little belated and irritating, but of course Rowling's publisher would have swallowed his/her hat if she had hinted at this in one of her books.

At the same time, and with all the reservations above, I am happy about a famous author saying that a character loved by millions of readers is gay. I remember seeing a film shot in the sixties, in which a gay man committed suicide because his being gay had been revealed. Nowadays, in spite of greater tolerance, homosexuality is not as accepted in our society as it was in Petronius' times (the author of the Satyricon), or in ancient Greece: Socrates had a male lover called Alcibiades; and let's not talk about that macho-man known as Achilles.

Wiglaf said: Actually, if he was outed in the book series, it probably would have been more an issue than the witchcraft. At least that many excused as fantasy. A gay professor seeing Potter alone in his office all the time would have caused an uproar in some groups.

So, it would appear that, in certain minds, homosexuality automatically implies interest in young people.
This raises a few questions that I’d like to submit to those hypothetically well-thinking groups.

Is it acceptable that a heterosexual male* principal see young girls** in his office?
Or are male* principals systematically dangerous for young girls**?
Then shouldn’t male* principals see young girls** only in the presence of a female**** teacher?
And why would one accept any male* principal without iron-cast certitude about his*** private behaviour?
Ergo, shouldn’t any male* principal’s morality be investigated and duly certified?
But wouldn’t it be safer if male* principals were banned from schools altogether?
Finally, and in case nothing of the above could be seriously implemented, shouldn't schools be closed?
Underage girls** are better off at home, with their mothers, after all.

*or female **or boys ***or her ****or male

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

So, it would appear that, in certain minds, homosexuality automatically implies interest in young people.
This raises a few questions that I’d like to submit to those hypothetically well-thinking groups.

Is it acceptable that a heterosexual male* principal see young girls** in his office?
Or are male* principals systematically dangerous for young girls**?
Then shouldn’t male* principals see young girls** only in the presence of a female**** teacher?
And why would one accept any male* principal without iron-cast certitude about his*** private behaviour?
Ergo, shouldn’t any male* principal’s morality be investigated and duly certified?
But wouldn’t it be safer if male* principals were banned from schools altogether?
Finally, and in case nothing of the above could be seriously implemented, shouldn't schools be closed?
Underage girls** are better off at home, with their mothers, after all.

*or female **or boys ***or her ****or male

Ergo, no one can be trusted. Ergo, our governments will be happy to install more malfunctioning surveillance cameras everywhere!

 

[Thadlerian]

Re: Tongue Firmly in Cheek (so relax)

Besides, if authors now decide to just make up alterations about characters and events after the series has been finished without writing new material, what stops her from waking up one morning, getting a tea buzz, and announcing that all the Harry Potter characters were gay and are secretly illegal immigrants who fight international terrorism?

Or that they're all living in a jar of Tang.

 

[Spade]

I'm thinking this was a joke gone wrong.

 

[Dave]

Two things I noticed:

a) She was answering a direct question from the audience at an interview. Under those conditions it doesn't seem unreasonable to expand on what's perhaps hinted at in the book.

b) She also said she'd seen drafts of the script for movie-6 which mentioned a former (female) love interest for Dumbledore. She felt she had to quash that to keep "her" version of the character true; the director of 6 therefore also knew.

I was just going to post this also. I read all of the "cynical" comments, and "just to keep Potter in the news" comments. No, she just wanted to correct a possible script, and make her version of Dumbledore the one that prevails. This all comes from a talk/reading J.K. Rowling gave at New York City's Carnegie Hall. She responded to a child's question about Dumbledore's love life with: "I always saw Dumbledore as gay....Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald.... Don't forget, falling in love can blind us. [He] was very drawn to this brilliant person. This was Dumbledore's tragedy."

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Callisthenes of Olynthus was writing about a homosexual character in the fourth century BC, if it comes to that!

I hear Callisthenes is consulting his lawyers right now about a possible suit against Rowling for stealing his idea. All grist for the publicity mill, of course. I hate to be cynical about these things, but his sales will probably go up, too, if he takes her to court.

 

[Allegra]

I think it's ridiculous to even discuss about Dumbledore's sexuality. Who cares? He's a wizard in a children's fantasy book! If you ask me, I prefer he's nonsexual.

 

[SpaceShip]

I agree Allegra. And I think the discussion should stop dead right here. Otherwise, oh hell, wouldn't it be awful if someone decided to put together an encyclopaedia of Potter characters!!!!! Noooo - no long drawn out writings at the end of the writing pleeaaase!

 

[Mithridelle]

Heh heh. I childishly laugh at the thought of Dumbledore's sexuality.

 

[dwndrgn]

I saw a reference to this on Neil Gaiman's blog (Neil Gaiman - Neil Gaiman's Journal) and here is a portion of what he says about it:

You always wind up knowing more about your characters than you can get onto the page. Pages are finite, and the story isn't about giving you all the information about everyone in it any more than life is. Things the author knows about characters (or at least, strongly suspects -- it's never really real until it hits the page, because the process of writing is also a process of discovery) that don't make it onto the page could include the characters' backstory, what they like to eat, the toothpaste they use, what happens to them after the story is over or before it began, and what they do in bed. That something didn't turn up in the books just means it didn't make it onto the page or wasn't relevant to the story. (Or even, it made it in and the author cut that scene out because it didn't work. One of my favourite scenes in Anansi Boys went because it made the chapter work better when it was gone.)

 

[Majimaune]

Heh heh. I childishly laugh at the thought of Dumbledore's sexuality.

I see we're both of the same maturity. I did as well.

The Daily Bruin - Rowling reveals all, but is it too much?
Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet -- Printout -- TIME

I mean I really couldn't give a damn about Dumby being gay. All I wonder is why he didn't "come out of the closet" so to say, in the books. I mean yeah it might have been a bit awkward slotting it in somewhere but really I don't care. I would have been perfectly happy if she hadn't said anything about it and I still am perfectly happy so no change for me.

 

[Curt Chiarelli]

Curt...


Jeez.

Well Hoopy . . . . he is kinda, you know, oily . . . .

And yes, SS and Lily are right. The only mature perspective on this issue is to see it for what it is: a non-issue. Making a big fuss over this is tantamount to all the newspapers blazing this headline across their front pages: "ONE OUT OF EVERY TEN MEN ARE BORN WITH RED HAIR!!! MORAL DECLINE OF THE WEST IMMINENT!!!"

I think this analogy is a solid one. Homosexuality is a natural fact of life and should be seen as such. It is neither moral nor immoral. As in all of Nature's works, it is neutral. It exists. Get over it.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

Well homosexual isn't entirely natural is it? In a primitive sort of natural way, sex is mainly how humanity reproduces. You can't make babies from two men.

Before you start with your angry barrage, let me just say I have nothing against homosexuality, and I also think its a non-issue here. I just can't see how it fits in to nature's plan of survival and reproduction. Maybe then, its a human thing, like art. Nothing wrong with art either!

 

[PTeppic]

I believe there are plenty of animals which display homosexual behaviour, in the same way that many demonstrate rape and other unpleasant sides to heterosexual nature...

 

[Lith]

Well homosexual isn't entirely natural is it? In a primitive sort of natural way, sex is mainly how humanity reproduces.

Sorry, but I have to pick on this- last I checked, it's the only way we reproduce.

Animals do all sorts of things we would find morally reprehensible. I don't think that you can draw upon examples of animal behavior as a guide for human behavior.

 

[Pyan]

Animals do all sorts of things we would find morally reprehensible.

But the point is valid - as the main purpose to all animal life is to reproduce and continue the species, and some animals do exhibit homosexual behaviour, then surely that behaviour has to be part of their instincts, and therefore a natural thing?
Applying a human "moral code" to animals is the worst kind of anthropomorphism.

 

[Hilarious Joke]

Ha ha ha I guess my imaginary form of splitting into two like bacteria isn't really a way of reproducing yet.

I guess the point is is that if everyone was homosexual (and we didn't have IVF, which doesn't seem natural), humanity would die out. For humanity to continue there would have to be some sort of intimate connection between men and women (if we didn't have IVF).

BUT this is all just philosphical, I personally am glad that we have made such progress in acknowledging that love between a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be just as valid that between a man and a woman. Of course, there is still a ways to go, here in Australia homosexual marriage is still banned.

 

[Lith]

Natural, sure. But it's rather useless as far as human behavior is concerned, IMO. We train people into and out of certain behaviors all the time, regardless of natural urges present from birth.

What do you make of a dog humping your leg? Does that mean he's sexually attracted to you (making him, hmm, omnisexual?), or just confused?