When you read a book you really love, you bond with the characters. They become real to you. You “know” them as well as anyone else. Or do you?
Recently, JK Rowling announced to a group of school kids that Dumbledore was gay. I have to admit I found this revelation a tad startling, not because I have issues with anyone’s sexual choice, but because it forced me to even think about a character’s sexual choice that quite frankly in my mind was rather asexual. I just didn’t think of Dumbledore “in that way.”
I was a tad annoyed with Rowling for dropping this bomb, again not because of any moral or political judgement on my part, but because I felt 1.) she did it to stir people up and 2.) that it was a bit underhanded that there was no clue to this in the books (or at least none your average reader would pick up on). Kind of like announcing on page 397 that the killer is actually the victim’s long lost twin with the perfect motive for murder. As readers we deserve to be in on things from the get go. But this tidbit was either never truly part of her design for Dumbledore, or purposely held back. In either case dropping it outside of the books just didn’t feel fair. Now I cannot shake the image of Dumbledore sans clothing, red-faced and huffing, while…you know…(with whoever). It is a bit like the day you realize your parents had to have done something to get you here. Life will never be quite the same.
That all said, she is the author, and thus she has the “right” to say her characters are whatever she wants. Or does she? Do you as a reader buy all this? If an author suddenly begins to twist a character into something you don’t like, do you buy it? Or does your brain shut down? Do you refuse to believe?
I have to say that personally, I have quit reading series for just such reasons.
And how about characters and books in the public domain? There is fan fiction galore. And how many versions of Jane Austin’s works are there now? Too many to name here. How do you feel about that? If someone takes a character you love and makes them do something you don’t, is that right? (They may have the legal right, but in your heart…is it right?) Does this make something inside you twitch?
Do you read these books? Or skip them by? I for one refused to crack the spine of Scarlett. Some things just aren’t meant to be messed with.
No related posts.
I buy that, in her head, he was always gay, because of what she said about his fascination with Grindelwald as a young man. Did we need to know? No, or she would have made it clear in the books. But I know (from comments on her website) that she is passionate about combatting predjudice and I think anti-gay sentiment is high on her pet hate list, so I put down this announcement not to malicious tinkering with the story, but trying to use the popularity of the books to further her campaign on the subject. Should she have done so? I have mixed feelings about it, but if I had to pick, I would come down on the side of her having the right to do whatever she wants with her own work.
Having said that, I, too, can live without revisionism in books (and movies, for that matter). Fan fiction is a fun and harmless pastime as long as it isn’t published. Poor imitiations of much loved books are usually dreadful as art and a little sickening, ethically, for me. A notable exception is ‘March’, by Geraldine whassiname. But there, she didn’t try to recreate the feel, or even the characters of the original book, but created the backstory of a character who hardly appears in the book at all (the father of the March sisters in Little Women). She did it well, although I still think it’s a dreadfully risky business.
I agree with Imelda about both Rowling’s main motive and the fact that she certainly has the right to do it.
I think part of the problem for a lot of the people who are complaining is exactly what was said. All writers and most readers know that writers develop a lot of info about characters (and settings and plots and backstory and everything else) which never makes it into the published version of a story. Whether it gets cut in edits or whether it was something the writer knew but never needed to say explicitly in the story, I’ve never known a writer who didn’t know a lot more about a story and its characters than what ended up being published. So the fact that Rowling knows things about Dumbledore and everyone else which was never said in the books shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone, or any kind of an issue worth discussing, much less arguing about or protesting.
If Rowling had mentioned that Dumbledore had collected snidget nests as a boy, or that he played the harpsichord or that he baked a mean taffleberry muffin, no one would be griping at all. And a lot of people would’ve been mildly pleased to have been given another bit of info about one of their favorite characters.
Instead, though, she let out the fact that he was gay. It wasn’t mentioned in the books because it didn’t matter to the books, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t know it, nor that it didn’t have some impact on the story, particularly his interactions with Grindelwald.
But OMG, Dumbledore’s gay!! The fact that it was that particular bit of info which was dropped is what has so many people up in arms. It’s not a question of whether or not she should give information outside the books, or whether it’s relevant or whether it’s canon or anything like that. What’s being grouched about, bottom line, is the fact that she revealed something about Dumbledore which a lot of people find objectionable. It’s their opinion about the information that has them complaining, not the fact that a piece of extra info was revealed.
I frankly find their objection objectionable.
Angie
I just felt it was unnecessary. JK knew it, fair enough but part of the mystique of a book is that for every reader it’s a slightly different experience and that experience is based on what has actually been written – not necessarily what the author intended. The two things can be quite different. For me it was that something else had been politicised instead of it being what it was intended to be – a childrens book about magic that gripped the imagination.
To be fair, she didn’t announce it. She answered a direct question from the audience at a Q&A session, which was then reported as “Rowling announces Dumbledore was gay!”.
So what’s she supposed to do? Refuse to answer any questions at all? People will bitch about that, because some fans *do* like to have more information than what’s in the books. Refuse to answer any questions that might involve mention of a character’s sexuality? She’ll be criticised for that, be sure of it.
I can’t comment on whether there were any clues in the books, because I’ve only read the first four. But I’m inclined to believe the people who say that there were enormous great clues in the text, because some of the people saying it are not people who read everything through slash-coloured glasses. (I’m not going to go by the quotes I’ve seen, because I know exactly what fans can do with out-of-context quotes.)
As a more general thing — some fans only want what’s in the book, others want to know more about the world and its characters. There’s a market for the Silmarillion because some people *do* want to know more about the world Tolkien created. That’s why you get author Q&A sessions. There’s nothing particularly unusual about this one, other than it’s JKR and a topic that gets a lot of knickers in a knot, and thus it suddenly becomes headline news.
I heard that the other reason she “outed” Dumbledore was because the sixth movie wanted to introduce a girl he was interested in as a child. As it turns out, the reason he is so philosophic about love is not because of a girl, but because of a boy. (Grindlewald) I give her credit for never bringing it up directly in the books, but I defend her right to say, “That’s not true” to the movie people who wanted to change her character in just the way you are describing.
When I read the series with my kids, if they bring it up, I’ll say, “Well what do you think?” and let them sort through the clues in the text itself. I think they too will find it doesn’t really matter.
I still see Dumbledore the same way, kind, witty, old and wise. That is all he needs to be.
I do that with my minor characters.
I’ll have multi-cultural characters
but I don’t point and say
“look this minor character is Asian”
or “the competition for the love interest is African American.”
No, ’cause it isn’t important.
But if I was asked,
I’d say he or she was.
I couldn’t lie and say he was a white guy
when in my mind, he’s not.
So it comes down to whether she was asked a question
or volunteered the information.
Since she was talking at a school,
I’d hazard a guess that she was asked.
The way Dumbledore talked about his old friend gave me the impression that he was gay. At least when he was young, discovering his sexuality. Personally, I didn’t mind him being gay since it didn’t take away from his importance in the story.
As for series, sometimes I don’t get the motivation behind the changes in the main characters. For instance, Anita Blake in Laurell K. Hamilton’s series. After book 9, she’s just having all these sex with all these vampires and weres; and personally, I don’t see much of it contributing to the plot or moving the series forward. Some people have tried to explain to me that Anita is changing into something similar to the vampire master, except she’s having one too many animals to call. I’m down with that idea. But does she really have to have sex so explicitly that at the end of the story I don’t know what it was about?
I have to say I thought she’d made it pretty obvious that he was in love with Grindelwald. It was a real non-surprise to me when she “outted” him (kind of like learning that the “big secret” of THE CRYING GAME was that the chick was a dude . . . um, it was pretty freaken obvious, at least to those of us who grew up in large cities with a relatively open gay population).
I am pretty careful about what “fan fiction” I read; not much appeals. I did read ‘Scarlett’ and really enjoyed it, and just checked out ‘Rhett Butler’s People’ to read his side of the story.
I agree Jane Austen’s fans can go a little haywire at times, but I have read a P&P trilogy called ‘Fitzwilliam Darcy, Gentleman’ that explores Darcy’s perspective. Again, I truly enjoyed it.
Nell, that is exactly how it hit me. Although, now thinking about it more, maybe she did have more clues in there and they were downplayed or deleted with editing. I can totally see that as a possibility. But to me to make a real statement about nonprejudice against gays–he just would have been gay. No big deal to be made.
I don’t want to this be about the gay thing, because honestly that isn’t how I meant this blog at all. But, in response to Kalen, if I’d been asked what character I thought might be gay. It would have been Harry. For some reason his “romances” just never read true to me.
Anyway, I guess I like to “know” my characters from the get go. Especially series characters that you spend more time with. A big reveal is just jarring to me. Just like if an author doesn’t describe their characters until the end of the book and you suddenly discover the woman you thought of as petite and blond is really tall and a redhead.
So far as readers liking to learn “new” things about characters. I don’t–not unless it is in the pages of a book. Maybe I’m weird that way, but unless it’s in the context of the book I just don’t buy it. I need to be shown a character, not told later, or I get grumbly.
Lori
On the Scarlett and Jane Austin thing, taking much loved characters and adding to their stories has become really popular. I don’t have a problem with that really, but I’ve never read one because I’m apparently WAY set in my ways and like sticking with the original.
Anyway, I guess I like to “know†my characters from the get go. Especially series characters that you spend more time with.
Yes, but as Angie and Jules pointed out, there are always things that have to be left out of a series, but some readers like to know more, and if they ask the author a direct question she/he may choose to tell them. I do wonder why such a big thing is being made of this. Do we know the sexual orientation of all the other characters? Would there have been headlines if it had been revealed that one of them was heterosexual?
Re this bit, “Now I cannot shake the image of Dumbledore sans clothing, red-faced and huffing, while…you know…(with whoever)”, from what I could tell, all that Rowling said was that Dumbledore was gay and had been in love with Grindelwald. But all that reveals is his sexual orientation: she didn’t reveal anything about his sex life, so we don’t know if Grindelwald reciprocated Dumbledore’s feelings and/or whether they actually had sex.
In any case, I’m curious about why you’ve got such a strong reaction to the idea of Dumbledore’s sex life. I’m assuming that it’s not simply the idea of a fictional character having sex, because you write romance and it’s a genre in which there are often sex scenes and the expectation isn’t that readers will finish the novels feeling upset and saying “Now I cannot shake the image of Hero X and Heroine Y sans clothing, red-faced and huffing, while…you know…” So if it’s not the idea of sex per se that’s got you upset, is it because he’s old? Or because he’s gay? Or because he’s not handsome enough?
I read and enjoy some series and almost always loose interest at some point. Authors have told me things about characters that haven’t made it into the books and sometimes I appreciate the extra details, sometimes not. The more attached I am to a character, the less I want an author to share extra information about them that will alter my image of the character.
As it has been pointed out elsewhere, it would have been completely inappropriate for any school personnel to discuss his or her sexuality with a STUDENT, so I think NOT having having Dumbledore say “So, Harry, I’m gay” was more realistic and practical than a political omission. Not only is there nowhere in the story such a conversation was necessary, an eighth book would be required to address the lawsuits filed against Hogwarts…
I continue to be amazed by the number of people who have “always known Dumbledore was gay.” I had re-read the series straight through just before this kerfuffle broke out, and I can honestly say sex never once crossed my mind—not the teachers, not the teenagers, not the Dursleys, not the centaurs, and not even the blast-ended skrewts. I guess I just don’t read “deeply” enough.
One of my favorite series is the Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes books written by Laurie R. King. I have always been a devoted Holmes fan so of course when the first book in this series came out I was disgusted and refused to read it. How could anyone even think of touching Holmes–how dare they! For some reason a couple years later I did pick up the book, started reading and fell in love with the mystery and the relationship that develops between the two characters. The writing is wonderful and the research amazing. So if the writing is good and the story is fresh I’ll follow where the author takes me.
Ironically, I was a little weirded out at the end of the last Harry Potter book to find out that Draco was not gay. He’s the one that struck me as gay. He seemed a little too angry, defensive, and too attached to Crabe and Goyle.
The thought of Draco with a wife just makes me go “huh?” Maybe it is all an act. LOL
And I agree with the school faculty statement. A teacher would never discuss their love life directly with a student, so it shouldn’t have come up in the context of the books, as it didn’t.
I’m not asking myself if McGonagall and Sprout sneak off to the back greenhouses either, and I shouldn’t.
Laura, but Harry Potter isn’t a romance. A character’s sexual preference/activity didn’t enter the equation until introduced later. To be quite honest I don’t want to think about any of the Harry Potter characters’ sex lives–although I’m sure there are others who do and are probably writing fan fic at this very moment.
And I don’t agree that knowing Dumbledore was gay would cause a multitude of law suits. There is nothing illegal/immoral (IMO) about being gay. People at the school could easily have known and accepted that. There would not have had to be a big “I’m gay” scene between teacher and pupil.
I’d just have prefered to either 1.) have known this character tidbit upfront or 2.) left it undiscussed all together.
I think JKR is a hypocrite. If she felt SO strongly about Dumbledore being gay – then she should have made that fact clear. It didn’t have to be in the books, it could have been during an interview or on her website. She outted him when the series was finished and the media frenzy was dying down. That seems slightly calculated to me.
And JKR also stated that she thinks size zero is damaging to young girls, and she doesn’t want her daughters to grow up surrounded by importance of appearance. However, in her books, the larger people are the evil or nasty characters e.g Dursleys. I would have had more respect for her if Harry had found love with a not so pretty larger girl not an impossibly perfect, beautiful thin one.
“To be quite honest I don’t want to think about any of the Harry Potter characters’ sex lives”
But if you do, it’s only because you’re inventing the details in your own mind. Rowling hasn’t said anything about Dumbledore’s sex life, unless you’re taking “sex life” to mean any indication of sexual attraction and/or non-explict references to sexual activity (e.g. that someone is married and/or has a biological child).
Harry, Ginny, Hermione, Ron and others get married and have children in the last book, and there are details about other characters in earlier books falling in love/being married/having had children. The Beasleys have a lot of children, for example, Hagrid fell in love with Olympe Maxime, Snape was in love with Lily and so on.
I really don’t see that a revelation that Dumbledore was once in love with someone gives you more information of a sexual nature about him than you already had about a number of other characters. Did you imagine sex scenes for all those other characters too?
I haven’t read the last book. And, as I said before, I think the emphasis comes more from making a statement after the fact than seeing relationships as they are there in the book. Making a statement outside the context of the story made that the focus whereas it wasn’t otherwise.
I think JKR is a hypocrite. If she felt SO strongly about Dumbledore being gay – then she should have made that fact clear. It didn’t have to be in the books, it could have been during an interview or on her website.
She didn’t say she felt “SO strongly” about it. From the transcript I read it just seemed as though it was something that she took for granted as part of that character’s backstory and so she only mentioned it when it became relevant (i.e. if he was going to be portrayed the wrong way or if someone asked a direct question about it).
She was asked “Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?”, so she said yes and explained who he’d been in love with: “My truthful answer to you… I always thought of Dumbledore as gay [...] Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald”. And she apparently did bring the matter up earlier:
recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair… I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, “Dumbledore’s gay!”
Um, have you read the books? Hagrid is both large and good. Bellatrix is both small, beautiful, and evil. Hermione is discribed as basically a funny looking girl with horse teeth (which get magically fixed in one of the early groups) and fluffy hair. I don’t think she’s ever discribed as “impossibly perfect”, “beautiful” or “thin”. And isn’t Mrs. Weasley plump?
Making a statement outside the context of the story made that the focus whereas it wasn’t otherwise.
But she made revelations about other characters on the same day, including the answer to the question “Did Neville ever find love?” For some reason, the media choose to focus on the answer to the question about Dumbledore.
I know that Jenny Crusie’s mentioned that some secondary characters got married (ones for whom she’d planned a sequel which was never written). As Jules mentioned, the Silmarillion is full of extra details that Tolkein didn’t have space/time to include in his novels. Eloisa James writes little extras for her readers, in response to them saying which things they’d like to know more about. Julia Quinn wrote some “second epilogues” for some of her novels. So it seems to me that revealing extra details about characters is really pretty common. It’s the same as the extras you get in “director’s cut” versions of films. I can understand that some readers might not like this/don’t want to know more than what’s in the original version, but I don’t think Rowling’s done anything particularly unusual.
I think it’s a pretty powerful statement that readers (or movie-goers) will have such strong reactions to a character. It means that character has come to life. So, whatever people say, I think Ms. Rowlings has the right to feel mighty satisfied with the work she’s done as an author.:wink: And I don’t even like her stories.:mrgreen:
If you want the FULL story on what JKR actually said, go to mugglenet.com. They have the full text of ALL the appearances JKR made, and of all the questions she was asked.
The subject came up previously as stated when direction was needed for character arc in filming of HPOP.
JKR was on a cross country american tour specifically TO answer fam questions. Her stops were jam packed with audiences of kids who had WON tickets to her readings and WON personally autographed books. JKR made a special point to stop in NOLA and do a signing for Katrina affected school children.
Since you haven’t read the last book, which has a strong theme of lost love that yet endures in both the storylines of Dumbledore and Snape, I’ll leave a spoiler bit so you can decide whether or not you wish to read on.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))SPOILER(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
This understanding of love that is not returned is key to understanding why Dumbledore and Snape become so close.
Snape makes it possible for Harry to live… and Snape actually is the character voice used to express outrage over the path Dumbledore chose for Harry.
Snapes angry line to Dumbledore about Dumbledore fattening Harry as a pig for slaughter or raising Harry only to be killed is perhaps one of the most likeable Snape moments in the books. Snape actions were to preserve Lilys son’s life no matter what was required of him. Snapes patronus made me sniffle. And I’m not a big Snape fan.
JKR wrote a moving tribute to a flawed love that exists whether or not it is returned when she wrote the Snape story. And Dumbledore’s story of his love in his youth and his love of power which directly led to the death of his sister and the breakup of his family then led Dumbldore to a life long attempt at repentence to do right and a battle against the evil wrought by his one true love does much to explain WHY Dumbledore trusted Snape as he did.
Dumbledore actually had to defeat his one true love in battle. Dumbledore was the only one who could defeat G.
Otherwise a key point in the Hallow subplot doesn’t work.
No there wasn’t an actual sex scene with Dumbledore. There aren’t actual sex scenes with any of the characters, just a lot of snogging and jokes about whether or not Harry has a tatoo like Ginnny says he does.
Dumbledore is referrred to in the tabloids in HPDH as having an unnatural interest in Harry…and his relationship with G is referred to in loaded terms by people interviewed in his bio for that book including G’s aunt and by his bro Albus.
I guess we’ll see what a court of law thinks about JKRs right to her world and characters as she is suing over a proposed wiki on Potter world.
JKR didn’t just pull this out of her hat…this early love is a plot point that ties major story arcs together in a way that allows redemption and love to triumph.
The hard lessons Dumbledore learned about power and his own bigotry and loving the wrong person for you, and thus you the reader learn why Dumbledore never wanted to be head of the Ministry and why Dumldedore cried when he slipped on the cursed ring and what Dumbledores biggest failure was. And why Dumbledore so vividly understood the lure of the Mirror of Erised.
I think the way the news was conveyed in the media dramatized JKR remarks. I couldn’t believe the difference of what JKR actually said in transcripts and the way it was reported on the news. ..and that’s muddied the water of discussion on the issue, imho.
I thought she did an amazing job of redemption on the final book.
Course I kinda thought Luna would marry Dean or Neville, but hey…at least we know she did get married. Didn’t get why Teddy wasn’t living with Harry and Ginny, either.
I can see him being gay, looking back at it. I didn’t need to know. I have the same mental picture and could do without it.
I never wondered about Dumbledore’s sexuality as I read the books, but when I heard Rowling had said he was gay, it made perfect sense to me – explained a couple of things I’d mildly wondered about.
It wouldn’t have been in the books, because the story is told from Harry’s viewpoint, and he wouldn’t have thought about Dumbledore’s sexual orientation.
I do think, as someone said above, that it’s odd that it’s only this revelation that upsets people. I was more perplexed by the news that Luna and Dean don’t get together.
More generally, I think it’s interesting to hear authors talking about their work and answering questions. It’s one of the things I enjoy about the internet – reading behind-the-scenes snippets from authors – perhaps about why they changed a name, or deleted a scene, or came to write a character. It’s like the deleted scenes on a DVD – they aren’t part of the work, but I often enjoy watching them.
I agree with Laura Vivanco. How you answer whether or not you need to know that detail depends on whether you choose to watch “director’s cuts” of movies. Those who watched the director’s cut of “Daredevil,” for instance, know that the story M.S. Johnson turned in to the studio wasn’t the same movie shown to the public. And neither version was entirely true to the comic books.
Movie studios and publishers often have a large say in what the public consumes. Great if we like it, but are we shortchanging the authors, scriptwriters and directors if we don’t let them have their say about what the book or movie could/should have conveyed?
Where does art end? With its conception? With its unveiling to the public? With the fans who carry it beyond? I personally like living art that can morph with the reader, with the fan base, or with the author.
As for the gay issue, we’re exposed to people being “outed” all the time. Some catch you by surprise, some don’t. If all you can see is the image of that person getting it on with someone of the same sex after the announcement, then that’s a personal issue that goes way beyond the question of how much do we want or need to know about a character’s “life.” For me, it adds a depth and richness that, should I care to reread the books, will perhaps add a layer that I wouldn’t have seen otherwise. Or I can ignore it altogether. Eye of the beholder, and all…
Dumbledore’s sexuality doesn’t matter to the book. He’s an important character, yes, but only as what he does affects Harry and the plot. His sexual preference didn’t affect it — except perhaps that it enabled him to defeat the man he loved.
I’ve read a few Jane Austen books, and they’ve been good. Love Carrie Bebris’ Mr. and Mrs. Darcy mysteries.:cool: I didn’t read Scarlett. Just wasn’t interested.
Didn’t notice, don’t care. When I read the headlines all I said was “Really.Hmm.” and still I love the Harry Potter books. To be honest I’m more interested in how she mapped out the books than the characters. If I want to revist them I’ll crack open the first book until I’m back at 7. Nothing like reading the story to take you back on that journey.
About the actual topic. I’ve always felt that the characters are the writer’s when they are writing them, but the moment they give them up that’s when it the characters stop being theirs. To me this is why sequels and series are hard to write. One “out of character” action and you’ve lost your readers. Worst is that most times (with series at least) it just feels like your beating a dead horse and not giving the reader something new that will keep them in love with the character.
I think not knowing everything about my favorite characters be they in a book, a movie or a TV series allows my to imagine them as more than they are, as more of what I hope they are. As an author, I certainly don’t put all my characters emotions, history or most personal thoughts to paper. (Or computer screen)
I could care less that Dumbledore was gay or the author’s reason for outing him. I read fiction for pleasure. My favorite books are ones that keep me thinking about them and longing for more when I finish them. So please don’t tell me everything and I won’t tell you everything either.:wink:
I didn’t read everyone’s comment – too many. But I have to say I don’t think it was necessary for us to know. And also – why the need to make him gay? But then, I didn’t read any of the books…
I don’t like it when a new author twists old characters. I saw the movie…now I forget the name of it…based on Jane Austen herself. I got home and intrigued, researched her past. Her past was vaguely similar to the movie, but the movie took liberties and stretched the imagination. The truth is no one really knows about Jane’s romantic life. And for some reason, I was really let down! I hated that someone first of all, completed twisted someone’s life. And second of all, that we actually know very little about her life.
This isn’t very different to how I feel about book characters. I have seen a book that is supposed to be about Rhett Butler. What? How can anyone but the true author who created Rhett Butler know anything about him?