7 Responses to “aside: dumbledore”  

1. 1 concretegodmother Oct 29th, 2007 at 2:01 am

   Well, I’ll bite, if only lightly. I started out thinking the whole thing was entirely unnecessary. After I read the whole transcript, I was less puzzled about it — I understand better the context in which she made the statements. People have made odd and unnecessary presumptions about many characters in HP, and I’m sure it frustrated her and had a cumulative effect. I’m perfectly fine with Dumbledore being gay…but it was kind of unnecessary. It doesn’t add much to the reader’s understanding of the character or the books in general. If she wanted to make that aspect of his character clear, it should have been in the books in the first place. I’m just sorry it had to get sexual; does every intense, emotional relationship have to get sexual (cf. Grindelwald and Dumbledore)?

   So I ‘get’ where she was coming from, but I also ‘get’ that it wasn’t necessary. I guess I’m firmly on the fence on this one.

2. 2 ppb Oct 29th, 2007 at 9:33 am

   Hey, I mentioned that I was sending a dead, fictional character a coming out card! But no one commented.

   I also kind of felt like it was unneccesary, until I realized it would be in the scope of the movie. I kind of wish she had done something with it in the books. I mean, what’s the point of leaving it out?

3. 3 Libby Gruner Oct 29th, 2007 at 10:26 am

   It’s all over the kidlitosphere, RM. Check out JL Bell’s Oz and Ends for a great wrap up. (posts from 10/24 to 10/28, I think.) http://ozandends.blogspot.com/

   For what it’s worth, my 17-yo daughter, president of her high school’s GSA, thinks it’s great. I’m ambivalent–intrigued by the possibilities it opens up but also sorry if it seems to close any down. And I really don’t think there’s much in the text to support it, no matter what she thinks.

4. 4 Keith Oct 29th, 2007 at 10:59 am

   As I see it, whether a writer should have put more of a secondary character’s backstory into the narrative is a very silly thing to argue about.

   Novelists know all kinds of things about their characters that readers don’t. They’re not things to agree or disagree with. They just are. She probably knows his favorite dessert, too.

   And notice how she phrases it: “I always thought of Dumbledore as gay.”

   An author has to think of characters in specific ways. Regardless of what ends up in the book, the character has to be a whole person in the author’s conception. There’s no other good way to do it.

5. 5 Keith Oct 29th, 2007 at 11:12 am

   “No other good way” is arguable, but I’m hitting SUBMIT quickly at the day job.

6. 6 Matthew Oct 29th, 2007 at 6:43 pm

   I think it’s a great piece of political activism on Rowling’s part. I read a great article in Entertainment Weekly that made the case that Rowling’s outing of Dumbledore was her attempt to put the “purple person” theory into effect. The purple person theory says that if every LGBT person in the world were to turn purple, there’d be a lot less homophobia in the world due to the realization that we all know a friend/family member/co-worker who identifies as LGBT. The article contends that Rowling’s essentially doing the same thing for one of the most beloved fictional characters of all time.

   I haven’t read the books, so I can’t speak much to how much there is to read between the lines in regards to his sexual orientation, but I don’t think it’s necessarily uber important to put too much of that in there. I kind of like this modern trend that we’re one where people’s race and sexual orientation is mattering less and less. It’s showing that we’re progressing as a society. Because from what I can tell, Dumbledore’s outing seems to have made more of an impact on adults than it’s made on kids. Adults want to get all huffy and puffy about it while many of the kids I’ve read about seem to not really care what his sexuality is.

   Plus, his outing opens up a whole slew of possibilities for a Dumbledore themed book…kinda like the Harry Potter version of “Wicked.”

7. 7 concretegodmother Oct 30th, 2007 at 8:04 am

   NYT had an interesting piece on the topic in Arts yesterday. I like what he had to say.

Leave a Reply