One of the things I always liked about Rowling's Wizarding World was that, instead of presenting it as socially equal or even superior to that of the Muggle world, it was, in fact, ass-backwards in alot of ways. The ability to change memories, conjure things out of thin air, and turn your neighbor into a solid bronze statue of Kanye West had plenty of negative side effects. Classism and Racism aside, the sheer cultural stagnation was in some ways even more gripping than one of Gibson's dark futures. So it would be perfectly fitting, to me, for such a fictional society to have attitudes towards sexuality which were a hundred years behind the non-magical world. But even ignoring that you have to take into account that Dumbledore came of age in Britain in the 1920s -- not exactly the most gay-friendly environment to develop your worldview in.

--m4

(Reply) (Thread)

That's an excellent point. I also think it should be considered that British boarding schools are intensely conservative environments, where the teachers' private lives were definitely not within view of the students.

It's kind of depressing that so many critics refuse to take these things into account.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

What I don't understand is why so many people are taking Rowling's admission as some kind of attempt to earn PC points or something. I'm willing to bet she never thought about his sexuality, at all, until maybe the beginning of writing the last book, if not afterward. She probably sat down, read all she'd written and said to herself "Hey -- I think Dumbledore's gay!" When I was writing fiction (i.e. attempting to write something coherent, with a plot and everything) I'd often come to conclusions about characters I'd written about which were completely different than where I started from.

Example: I was writing (bad) Star Wars Fanfic back in 1993, and I created a Jedi named Tylia Darkrider. She was built like a cross between a Frank Frazetta woman and a lumberjack. She swore like a sailor and drank like a like a depressed Scotsman. I originally decided she was a lesbian but when I got to the end of the story I realized I'd just typecast her based on my own prejudices, so I went back and removed any references to her love-life.

--m4

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There's a tendency among minority groups to fervently wish for nothing but heroic representations in TV, films and literature. It's understandable -- if you've never seen people like yourself reflected as anything other than weak, creepy or evil while straight White folk get to be everything from truck drivers to world leaders, you want to balance the scales.

The problem is, when the pressure's put on to ban anything but heroic representations, it skews just as radically. Being out and proud is great -- but, yeah, there have been generations of men (and women) who lived their entire lives in the closet because they had to. The Brokeback reference is apt. Ennis chose to stay closeted because, in the time he lived in, he had valid reasons for making that choice. It's one of the reasons that it's so damn poignant, and it's hilarious when people just don't get that.

As far as the Rowling-audience thing goes, I have to admit that I've never understood the sense of proprietorship that many fans feel towards books and TV shows that they enjoy. I've certainly been annoyed (even royally pissed off) by the direction an author or show creator has taken a work I enjoy -- but that's where it ends. I'm the end consumer, not the creator. If somebody wants to kill off a character I like, or write a sequel in which their hero gets romantically involved with a character I hate ... well, I can choose to put it down and walk away. Writing hate mail or mailing several pounds of peanuts or something doesn;t make any sense to me.


So while I find, say, Rowling's comment about Dumbledore interesting, I can't for the life of me understand how it changes the written text, or causes anyone to feel like they need to passionately speak out on the subject.

But then, I don't really get fanfic, either. I mean, I understand why people want to write and read it, but getting obsessively passionate about it? That baffles me.

(Reply) (Thread)

Thank you so much. You phrased what I wanted to say exactly, especially, "The problem is, when the pressure's put on to ban anything but heroic representations, it skews just as radically."

I'm probably writing as someone who has had serious issues with "the closet" in the past, but I think this is the part of the whole thing that gets me the most.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I did get a bit angry post-Brokeback when I heard complaints about the fellas not coming out, living together openly, etc.

Because that was THE WHOLE POINT. It was a tragedy. It was an object lesson on why, exactly, demonizing homosexuality is a bad thing. If they'd been happy cowboys who rode off into the sunset together and spent their golden years running a combination dude ranch/bed-and-breakfast ... well, it would have just been a chick flick with cowboys.

You might as well complain that Madame Butterfly would be better if, you know, they all lived happily ever after. It kind of misses the point.

Back to Dumbledore: It's interesting to me that people only complain about not knowing about a character's sex life when they're gay. I doubt that, before this, a lot of readers were thinking, "I really need to know more about who Dumbledore would like to boff." I mean -- what the hell does it have to do with the story?

I've always had a sneaking suspicion that Snape's probably a bit of a pain queen and likes leather ... but I sure as hell didn't need to have it spelled out for me. I'm sure most parents wouldn't have appreciated it, either.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

is the idea that the closeted gay character is automatically negative

Not at all. But I think in that case the author should make it clear that the character really is gay. If they don't, then the assumption by most people will be that the character is straight, which defeats the purpose of writing about a closeted gay character.

(Reply) (Thread)

If Rowling had been writing about Dumbledore I'm sure it would've become quite apparent, but Dumbledore's Closet is largely irrelevant to Harry Potter's story, no?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Then why is Rowling now making an issue of it?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

She's not. She happened to mention a part of a subsidiary character's backstory that never made it to the finished books...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Thta's the bit that bothers me: people are assuming she is making an issue of it.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

someone asked, so she answered.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Rowling tried to write from Harry Potter's perspective, and there's a very good chance a teenager wouldn't pick up on his headmaster's sexuality very easily, especially if the professor in question were more than 100 years old. I mean... gay or straight, what teen wants to think about that?

--m4

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Good point. And certainly the way she dealt with his sexuality matched the character.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

But I think in that case the author should make it clear that the character really is gay. If they don't, then the assumption by most people will be that the character is straight, which defeats the purpose of writing about a closeted gay character.

Good point, and I do think that here Rowling played the subtlety card for adults, although to be fair she was accurately reflecting how many children of her generation came to first know about homosexuality: through vague hints and cruel gossip.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I haven't bothered reading too many of the negative reactions to this news coming from queer folks, so I was under the impression that the issue people were having was not that he was the wrong kind of gay, but rather that while she stated that a dead fictional character was gay, nothing in the text showed this, so it felt more like an odd publicity stunt, instead of a meaningful revelation.

Ultimately he was rather asexual, which I initaily took to be part of our cultures squeamish attitude towards older peoples sexuality, though I guess it also fits in with a common portrayal of gays and lesbians as well.

I like the werewolf as homosexual idea. It seems sort of obvious, which I guess goes to show that while i read the books and liked them well enough, I also never bothered to think too deeply about the contents.

(Reply) (Thread)

the issue people were having was not that he was the wrong kind of gay, but rather that while she stated that a dead fictional character was gay, nothing in the text showed this, so it felt more like an odd publicity stunt, instead of a meaningful revelation.

Yep.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I got told it was in relation to Rowling scratching out a mention of a woman Dumbledore had liked in the script notes for the current one they're filming. So it's not dredging up something irrelevant yonks after the fact but using invisible aspects of a supporting character's backstory to correct an erroneous impression in the adaptation.
I think.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Besides what mr_rakshasa brought up, it was in the text. There were heavy hints from, I think, about the fourth book on, and in the last book there are heavy hints about his past "friendships" and a running subplot about the media defaming Dumbledore, including suggestions that Dumbledore and Harry's relationsihp had a sexual element.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Like several people mentioned, she didn't mention it on her own, but as a response to a question why she vetoed a romantic subplot with a woman for Dumbledore in the film.

Ultimately he was rather asexual

I definitely agree with this, and like I said it wasn't what I would have preferred. Yet to be fair it did make sense in the context of the books.

I like the werewolf as homosexual idea.

I did too, mostly because I also love the concept of gay werewolves ;).

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

gay werewolves are the new lesbian vampires?

that could be cool.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Everyone's giving Rowling way too much credit on this. She's just a shitty writer.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, I object to that, because I don't like to think of myself as a person who invests hours into shitty writers. :)

Otherwise I agree; I don't think Rowling put more than five minutes into this. That's another reason why the arguments that Rowling is somehow working against the gay rights movement.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well, I object to that, because I don't like to think of myself as a person who invests hours into shitty writers. :)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, man.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

'there is a sentiment out there that we should discard or view as hostile any narrative where the only queer character is one that doesn't fulfill an ideal of the liberated gay person. This is in spite of the fact that, as I point out above, many gay people even today live the life of the classic "spinster" or the "confirmed bachelor." No matter how much the community may want to forget, those two archetypes are a tremendous and vital part of the community's historical consciousness. To deny that and its validity seems counterproductive and even dismissive of homosexuals living today who for whatever reason fail to fulfill every item on some imaginary checklist.'

Counterpoint - the problem could be so that writers and films and so on use this image of gay people too much without ever focusing on the positive. Granted there shouldn't be a ban on such representations, but when the most mainstream gay characters appear to be nothing but the negative representation, it might gall a bit.

(Reply) (Thread)

Well, I object to the idea that "Brokeback Mountain" or Dumbledore are negative portrayals at all.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Many people (including those from the LGBT contingent) don't. In the end it's a massive image game. Maybe it is superficial, but that unfortunately doesn't make it any the less important.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

(Reply) (Thread)

Thanks!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Awesome discussion.

What I love most about this is that Harry Potter is a huge cultural phenomenon, something everyone feels is permeable to them (e.g. fanfic) in a way that other such phenomena (e.g. Anne Rice's vampires) are not, and even if Rowling had made up the Dumbledore=gay thing off the cuff, it's still terrific fun that suddenly all these rabid parents and kids have to deal with the idea that this beloved figure from the books is a homo. It's just a fabulous bomb to drop, to the extent that it really doesn't matter in the slightest whether he's a "positive" or "negative" portrayal. What matters is that he's suddenly the pink elephant in the room. It's beautiful, and one of the reasons I really like Rowling whatever I think of her books (and I think that even when they're flawed they're still pretty good, particularly compared to the schlock riding her coattails). She seems utterly fearless about stuff like this.

What this reminds me of in some ways is that Doonesbury character who suddenly came out. It seemed very, er, "retcon" and frankly struck me as far more arbitrary than this. But then my own sexuality is such an urgent, insistent drive that it baffles me that some people take so long to figure theirs out. For me it's like having my hair catch on fire; I don't really need a mirror to figure out why my head is so hot.

(Reply) (Thread)