Ok, that's it...

[piasharn]

I'm posting my opinions on the whole "Dumbledore is gay" shenanigans that have been going on. I would have written it sooner, but... y'know. Raging wildfires and all that fun stuff going on out here has kind of had me distracted.

As a forewarning, this is a rant. Not against JKR, but rather some of the reactions I've seen among members of the fandom. And in case it wasn't obvious, these are just my opinions. Feel free to disagree and/or think that I am a complete and utter moron.

First things first, Jo did not randomly blurt out this fact. Read the transcript, people. She was asked a question, and responded to it. However, from the way people are reacting, you'd swear the question was about Harry and Ginny's kids' full names, and her reply was, "James Sirius, Albus Severus, and Lily Molly. Oh, and Dumbledore was gay!"

Look, a fan asked her if Dumbledore was ever in love, and she responded honestly by saying that yes, he was in love with Grindewald, and that he was gay. She had a reason for saying it.

Second, it does not appear that she decided to make Dumbledore gay on a whim. Again, read the transcript. She stated that, "My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay." Also note what she said when she saw how well fans were taking it: "If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!" (emphases are mine)

Hardly sounds like something she decided on last week.

For those who are wailing that this means that these are no longer children's books... please. First of all, nothing precludes children's literature from having gay characters, and second, it's not in the books anyway.

To those in denial, you might as well get over it. He's gay, so what? He's also her character and she has the right to decide what his sexuality was. You aren't the author of these books, and, as much as you may love these characters, they don't belong to you any more than they belong to me. Pretending none of this happened isn't going to make it go away.

Finally, to those who are bitter that Dumbledore's sexuality was not made clearer in the books, I can understand where you are coming from. I was always disappointed by the lack of gay characters or mentions of the discrimination they go through. It would have been a great message to GLBT fans. After all, the books are about tolerance and accepting people for who, not what, they are, correct?

But then I stopped and looked closer. See, the only kinds of discrimination we see in the books are unique to this world. Dean Thomas* and Hermione Granger get discriminated against because of their heritage and called "mudblood", but they do not face discrimination for being black or female. Nor do we see any examples of religious discrimination.

* Yes, I know that Dean is technically a half-blood. However, since he never knew his birth father and was raised by muggles, he is going to be treated as a muggleborn by the wizarding community.

It's possible that Anthony Goldstein was Jewish and that the Patil twins were Hindu. I'm sure that Jewish and Hindu fans would have loved to see characters that they could identify with as well. I'm sure that female fans could have related more towards Hermione if she had to struggle against sexist attitudes, or that black fans would have been able to sympathize more with Dean if he had faced racism in the Wizarding World.

For that matter, we never saw any characters who were interracial, from divorced families, or were born out of wedlock. I don't recall seeing any characters in wheelchairs or suffering from mental disorders like ADD or OCD. Not only were there no little people in the books, but JKR has outright said that they do not exist in this world. (How would you have felt if she had said that about GLBT people instead?) No blind characters. No deaf characters. I can't even recall any characters who were left-handed.

These are all things that various readers of the series could have identified with on, have seen their friends and classmates and family members deal with. Yet none of that was present. What did we have? We saw bigotry against muggles, muggleborn wizards, werewolves, half-giants, goblins, houselves, and so on. None of which exists in our world.

If kids whose parents are divorced didn't have characters like them, should we really be complaining so much that we didn't see any gay characters either? Yes, it would have been nice, but there are a lot of types of people that were left out in these books, people who face difficulties and discrimination as well.

Also, please remember that these books are about Harry and his fight against Voldemort. Not Dumbledore and his relationship with Grindewald. Dumbledore is important as he relates to Harry and Harry's fight, but to have gotten in-depth into his sexuality would have been unnecessary. Add to that the fact that Dumbledore was quite secretive when it came to his personal life and feelings. He didn't even tell Harry the truth when the latter asked him what he saw in the Mirror of Erised.

"I knew my brother, Potter. He learned secrecy at our mother's knee. Secrets and lies, that's how we grew up, and Albus... he was a natural."

--Aberforth Dumbledore (DH, ch. 28)

It may also be worth mentioning that Dumbledore was born in the late 1800s and spent most of his life living in a world where gay people had to hide themselves in order to avoid persecution. If I had seen what he must have growing up, I would admit that I would be wary of coming out of the closet as well. And I certainly would not have done so to a teenage boy who was not only a student of mine but who I was also attempting to aid in his efforts to defeat an evil megalomaniac.

For what it's worth, she did seem to hint at his sexuality oh-so lightly when the subject of his friendship with Grindewald came up. I can think of many people (and, for the record, many of them are not slashers) who raised their eyebrows and wondered if it was just friendship going on between the two. If it was only Grindewald's brilliant mind that attracted Dumbledore, or if there was something more. Something that would explain why Dumbledore would allow himself to be blinded to Grindewald's true nature.

It's a bit off topic, but since I've been seeing it mentioned a bit in connection with this... Those who are claiming that JKR only married off Remus and Tonks due to fans thinking that Remus was getting it on with Sirius... does anyone have any proof? Yeah, I felt like the Remus/Tonks relationship was rushed too, but I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that they were thrown together as a knee-jerk homophobic reaction on JKR's part. For all we know, she had been planning for Remus to get married before book three was even written. I love SB/RL as much as you guys, but I don't think it's fair to make this claim when we really don't know how and why JKR decided to have Remus and Tonks end up as a couple.

Besides, if JKR has no issues with Dumbledore being gay, I have a hard time believing that she have married off Remus and Tonks because she didn't like fans thinking that Remus was gay.

Also slightly off topic, but those who feel that JKR should not be releasing any new information after the books have been published... As long as fans keep asking her questions, she will probably continue to give answers. It isn't going to stop any time soon. If you're bothered by it, then perhaps the best thing to do would be to stop reading the interviews with JKR. People differ in their opinions as to whether or not an author should reveal more information after the books are published. Just because your opinion on the matter differs from JKR's does not mean that what she is doing is wrong. These are her books, and she has a right to answer fan questions if she wishes.

I'll admit, I'm happy about this announcement. I'd rather have her reveal a character to be gay after the series is done than to have absolutely no gay characters at all. (Or, worse yet, to have an anti-GLBT author.) Would I have been happier if it was revealed within the context of the books? Sure. Could she have made it a bit more clear, so that those who knew what to look for would have realized what Dumbledore was? Perhaps.

However, what's done is done. And it really doesn't seem worth it to get all riled up over a series of books in which I had absolutely no control. So I'm going to take the good and leave the bad.

Besides, it amuses me to no end that the slashers were right... at least about Dumbledore/Grindewald. Hell, that's more than the Harry/Hermione fans can say! ^_- (And the fandom always seemed to take the H/Hr fans a lot more seriously than it did the slash fans.)

Finally, in case you haven't read it, there's a great interview between The Leaky Cauldron and Sean Lund of GLAAD available here that I would recommend.

Comments

[aigooshesays.livejournal.com]

You caught my thoughts EXACTLY. Damn, that's pretty scary... or we perhaps share the same brain, lol.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Well, sharing a brain would certainly explain why mine seems to go missing at random times... *pokes at skull to see if it's currently in there* :p

[meepalicious.livejournal.com]

For those who are wailing that this means that these are no longer children's books... please. First of all, nothing precludes children's literature from having gay characters, and second, it's not in the books anyway.
... are people really saying that? I always figured they stopped being kids' books when Cedric dropped dead. I fail to see how Dumbeldore's sexuality makes can cause such an "oh noes! think of the children!" reaction when you've got people being tortured and killed.

[mrs-batman.livejournal.com]

I always figured they stopped being kids' books when Cedric dropped dead.
WORD.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

"... are people really saying that?"

A few people, yeah. Before I had to put aside fandom issues to deal with the wildfires, I was trying to debate with some people over at TLC's (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.or) message boards who held that opinion. This opinion, along with the really anti-GLBT comments, seems to be fairly few and far between, thankfully.

My view is that people, particularily those in the US, don't give kids enough credit as to what they can and cannot handle. I've always been amazed at how anime series deal with much deeper, darker, and more explicit themes than shows in the US that are aimed at the same age group.

Besides, it seems stupid to me that these books can show violence, death, bigotry, genocide, etcetera, and still be considered suitable for children. Yet the moment we get a gay character (and one that was never shown in a relationship, much less a sexually explicit one) immediately results in it being labled "Not For Kids". Why is violence OK, but a person who loves someone of the same sex not?

here via daily_snitch

[sonjamillicent.livejournal.com]

Word, word, WORD.

Re: here via daily_snitch

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Thanks!

[doomandnachos.livejournal.com]

I'd give you a slice of Word Pie for everything you've said that I totally agree with, but at this point, I'd have to send you an entire bakery.

Thank you, THANK YOU, for being a sane, reasonable voice in the mass of hysteria!

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

What amazes me is how absolutely insane so many fans are being about this. Which is why I finally had to say something; I'm glad that you liked it.

[evil-laugher.livejournal.com]

The funny thing about people now complaining that she's saying too much interviews, they only really started complaining about it once she announced he was gay. They were clamouring to know who married who and who got what job, but as soon as someone's gay (someone whose homosexuality wouldn't provide them with a masturbatory fantasy attractive enough, at least), THEN they want to be left to their imaginations! Unless you've been bitching about JKR giving too much information since her first interview... STFU.

[evil-laugher.livejournal.com]

Oh yes, more appropriate icon.

I also read in an article that after the Carnegie Hall incident, she said the reason she announced it was (she could've been as elusive as always) that the seventh book was supposed to provide strong hints, but not enough readers got them.

[Oh, and I'm here via daily_snith]

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

*facepalm* I knew I forgot to mention something!

Yeah, I noticed that too. Tidbits like Siriu's eye color and what the Trio did for a living... no problem (at least not a vocal one). Dumbledore is gay... OMGWTF?!! JO SHOULD JUST SHUT UP!!!1!

[shannon730.livejournal.com]

to have gotten in-depth into his sexuality would have been unnecessary.

And funny thing is that is what I would've considered inappropriate. At no point in 7 books can I see an appropriate time for Dumbledore to be discussing his sexuality with Harry...which would've been the only way for it to be part of the story. For the most part none of the teacher's sexuality was part of the story...Hagrid and Madame Maxime and Remus/Tonks was really it. In the end you learn about Snape/Lily but it had been 20 years before. because realisitically how many kids know anything about that aspect of their teacher's lives...

And you caught everything I've been thinking perfectly.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I just don't see how it could have been made obvious in cannon without it seem jarring. (It might have been one thing if, say, SB/RL turned out to be cannon, and Sirius lived, and Harry went to live with them and thus encountered the relationship as something he'd have to live with... But Dumbledore...?)

Even in the scene at the end, when Harry and Dumbledore were in the not-quite-King's-Cross-station it would have seemed awkward. Did Harry need to know the exact reason why Dumbledore was infatuated with Grindewald? After all, Dumbledore never shared if he ever discovered whose spell killed Ariana, and Harry even admits that it is not a question he felt he needed to know the answer to. Perhaps Dumbledore's feelings for his former rival were yet another aspect that was better left unsaid.

[schnuggleme.livejournal.com]

(Got here from Daily Snitch.)

Agree completely. I don't know how many times I've tried to compose polite responses to whiners this week.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Thanks! It's good to know that I'm not the only one who has felt frustrated.

here from daily_snitch

[race-carrigan.livejournal.com]

I don't recall seeing any characters in wheelchairs or suffering from mental disorders like ADD or OCD. Not only were there no little people in the books, but JKR has outright said that they do not exist in this world... No blind characters. No deaf characters.

I always did wonder at the lack of "disabled" characters in the books. Being deaf, and knowing many other people with challenges with mobility, sight, etc, I thought magic would be a perfect way for these people (myself included) to be on equal footing with others. You make me want to see if these things are explored at all in fic. Hm.

Re: Dumbledore: I think many people forget the period in which he grew up, and also how stunted the Wizarding World is, in many ways still hearkening back to that period. It may very well be that even post-Voldie the pervasive attitude may not be safe for free sexual expression. Also, I totally agree that his sexuality had nothing to do with the story and would have drawn attention of readers away from more important plot points. I don't think that post-publication was an entirely inappropriate time to announce her impression about Dumbledore's inclinations- I mean, would fans prefer she had kept her ideas about it to herself and let people assume heterosexuality?

Re: Remus/Tonks: I don't hate Remus/Tonks, even though I agree that it seems to me totally rushed. But in times of war, relationships and romances are often rushed because of a sense of urgency, loneliness, fear of not having much time left, etc... and in reality, they didn't have much time left, did they? :( Also, though, IMHO, just because Remus ended up with Tonks does not necessarily preclude that he may at one time have been with Sirius. There are plenty of points on the continuum of sexuality he could hypothetically fall on; why be so black-and-white, Fandom?

Re: here from daily_snitch

[(Anonymous)]

What about the ghoul in the attic? Is he an invalid? Is Molly taking in invalid lodgers to make ends meet?

[no-mad-skillz.livejournal.com]

*wild applause*

It astonishes me how many people, fans and columnists alike, are saying, "But it wasn't in the books!" -- completely ignoring the fact that the books are written from the limited perspective of a schoolboy who would be oblivious to/squicked by any thought of sexuality in regards to his teachers. And at what point would Dumbledore's sexuality have been introduced, anyway? And to what purpose? Would it have been relevant to Harry's story?

The hints are there. I believed him to have been gay and infatuated with Grindelwald as soon as I read Chapter 18.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Also, it is impossible to insert every tiny detail about every single character and background of the wizarding world into the books. There wouldn't be any room left for Harry.

I'll admit I didn't pick up on the Dumbledore/Grindewald subtext at first - I was too busy plowing through the book to see what would happen to notice little details like that.

Rereading DH with this new fact in mind has been great, though. I can't wait to go start back at book one and see how I view Dumbledore this time around.

[secretsolitaire.livejournal.com]

Also here via daily_snitch, and just chiming in to say I agree completely. Thanks for such a clear, reasonable post.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

No problem! ^_^

[vlredreign.livejournal.com]

Tell you what, if that's your idea of a rant, I'm scared, cause that was the calmest post I've seen yet on this topic.

I totally agree with you, btw.

This caught my eye:



But then I stopped and looked closer. See, the only kinds of discrimination we see in the books are unique to this world. Dean Thomas* and Hermione Granger get discriminated against because of their heritage and called "mudblood", but they do not face discrimination for being black or female. Nor do we see any examples of religious discrimination.

The term "mudblood"...it's interesting that JKR picked this. In the south, this term is used to described people of mixed blood, usually balck and white. Members of various white supremast groups use it all the time. Unpure blood. Also along that line, and something that I've mentioned during all this, was the fact that two Weasley kids, yeah, those pale, freckly redheads, dated black people, and no one batted an eye. Harry dated an asian girl, and took Parvati, who we'll assume is middle-eastern, to the Yule Ball. No wank whatsoever.

One other thing. We have clergymen and teachers molesting kids. Do we really wonder why JKR might not have wanted to put Dumbledore's orientation into her books? Bad enough to some that she mentioned it at all. I'm sure she probably didn't even go there in her thinking, but what if she did? Then she made a good decision. I'm thinking the backlash would have been way worse if she had put it in.

Someone said to me that a reason for putting it in had to do with the theme of love. That showing Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald would have pushed the point of love home even more. I thought she did fine without it, but that's just me.

Thanks to you, and the Daily Snitch for guiding me here.

[dancesontrains.livejournal.com]

A little nitpick- the Patil twins are Indian.

Word to piasharn for being so mature, though. And again, I'm here from the daily snitch.

[sabrinanymph.livejournal.com]

Just here to agree. I think it was actually a Time magazine article that irritated me more than anything I've read in fandom at this point, but there you go.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

I don't think I read the Time piece. I did, however, read one in my local paper and a few more online that made me roll my eyes.

It seems as though a lot of the newspaper articles got their information from second-hand sources. They weren't at the Q&A session, and they didn't bother to find a transcript of what was really said, so now they're coming to bizarre conclusions based on what they think was said.

This is true of supportive reviews as well. For example, Box Turtle Bulletin (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/) did a small piece (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/10/22/919#comments) on the subject by linking to (and quoting from) an article in the Chicago Tribune. However, since the Tribune did not accurately quote the question or JKR's response, some of BTB's readers came away thinking that something very different had gone on. After they were given the relevent segment of the transcript, they were much more clear on what had actually transpired.

[iulia_linnea.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this post. *beams at you*

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

You're welcome!

[nemesister.livejournal.com]

Hear, fucking hear! I do understand some of the criticism about how she has not made it more obvious in canon. I would have liked this too. So my only complaint lies with the conversation at Kings Cross. Other than that she handled it pretty well and I can't say the same about a lot of her dissenters.

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Well, I doubt that every single fan would be 100% happy no matter what she said or put im the books. Which is why I'm going to be happy about having a gay character rather than no gay characters, and I'm not going to let the whole thing make me insane. (Or more insane than I already am...)

[ms-blum.livejournal.com]

This is one of the few posts about the whole Dumbledore debacle that i agree completely 100% with
*favs and passes it to friends*
-Alas at L.Lounge

[piasharn.livejournal.com]

Thank you! This post seems to have struck a note with some members of the fandom, so I'm glad that I posted it after all. ^_^