The headlines blare! “Albus Dumbledore was gay!”
Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall.
After reading briefly from the final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” she took questions from audience members.
She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds “true love.”
“Dumbledore is gay,” the author responded to gasps and applause.
My first reaction was a “Huh?” I mean, not as a tru-fan of the series but as someone who’s read all the books, I never had any particular clue that he was gay. Nor, for that matter, that he was straight. Evidently, though (read the AP story if you want more details), some of the “Dumbledore’s past” plot elements Rowling gave out in the final novel or two tie into this, and she actually had to make a correction of some bits that were being inserted into the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince movie.
It’s nothing particularly shocking, upon consideration (hell, for all I know, half the faculty at Hogwarts is gay, for all we know of their love lives — no doubt there’s plenty of slash fiction out there on the Internet to support the hypothesis). Little question, though, that the same folks who criticized the books for their witchcraft will find further to criticize in this (I can just hear the bile and sniggering now).
(via Ginny)
Huh…
Well I know that I just do not get hints, but she must have been so subtle on that one it went over my head completely.
It seems likely enough to me, given the fact that he’d never married, there was no lost (female) love in his past that Harry discovered, and his friendship with Grindelwald was so intense. I just didn’t make the guess until Rowling announced it, and had a rather “duh, of course” moment.
Of course, this throws new highlights onto Dumbledore’s early relationship with a young Tom Riddle, too. And Harry, to a lesser extent.
Does it, really? I mean, I think the whole “mentor/student” thing is a perfectly legitimate and applicable motif. Dumbledore’s orientation doesn’t seem to make any difference here.
The last thing I want to see is folks declaring that Dumbledore was some sort of gay pedophilic predator, always inviting Harry up to his quarters to “share memories” and the like.
Dave, where you quoting something?
My take:
(1) So what? It advances the plot how?
(2) The series is done and she’s having fund with the fans.
(3) The series is done and she needs a new wing for the castle. Banned or controversial books sell big. After all, if they go for a book burning, it’s no skin off her pocketbook.
(4) By doing this, she makes a bid for Harry to become “serious literature”. Which means scores of literature students looking for a M.A. or Ph.D. thesis will take her seriously, and therefore increase sales of the books which leads back to that whole wing of the castle thing.
(5) Yes, I am a curmudgeon.
(1) There is a degree of “so what?” involved, though she does seem to have considered it in some of the plotty background. I don’t, though, buy the “well, we don’t know of any ladyfolk in his background, so he must be gay” argument — since it assumes that a romantic relationship was also plotworthy to discuss.
(2) I don’t think so. Could be wrong, though.
(3) Possibly, though, again, that doesn’t feel correct.
(4) Also possible.
(5) Well, yes, of course.
BD: Yes, I was (the last paragraph of the preceding post, in fact). I just malformed by blockquotes. Fixed.
Woot on the fixing! ;p
Exactly.
Every other major character had their relationships delved into and all of them caused major plot/background to happen. If you are going to say that Dumbledore is gay then you need to at least treat it the same way as you had treated every other big relationship in the series.
Personally I think it would have been a wonderful bit as Harry finds out he’s gay. Harry and Ron act like the stupid gits that they are and Hermione has to pound logic into their heads as to what difference does it make as to who Dumbledore loves or has sex with.
Yeah…that would have been a great chapter. 🙂
Amanda Marcotte’s take on the subject I think really hits the nail on the head.
More if you follow the link.
Perhaps Amanda does not realize that many authors create full profiles of their characters before they even begin writing the stories. This is standard practice in fiction writing.
I tend to accept what the writer presents on its face, which is one reason why Margie is much better at puzzling out mysteries and “whodunnit” than I am. That nobody provided extensive backstory to Dumbledore until the very end was not, to me, a red flag — especially since, as the Kindly Mentor Wizard, he was an archetype that doesn’t usually have a background to discuss. He was what he was, none of which particularly screamed “gay” or “straight” (or whatever).
Which ties into the linked article —
But that’s only if it’s important to the story — there was no compelling need for Dumbledore’s orientation to come up in his present activities, and his past activities really didn’t come into focus until the last book — and, even then, it can be read in either direction (best of friends having a violent and vicious falling out is not exactly a new plot element, and even if some of those have been covert expressions of the break-ups of forbidden romances, it doesn’t follow that they all are — it can literally be whatever you want to make of it).
A think Marcotte, though, overstates it — especially in a “children’s” / YA super-megahit-mainstream movie-generating setting, including an openly gay Dumbledore — even if he’s not doing anything about his orientation — does have an effect on potential revenue that Rowling, discounting any personal feelings she might have, would be likely to consider (or, if not her, then her editor and publisher). “Being English, she’s unlikely to care” is wildly idealistic, since the US was, from the start, a big contributer to the revenue stream of the series.
The comments in the above post are pretty good. I really liked this one, though:
The last line of that quote in your previous reply bothered me. I’m not sure that there was anything in the series to support the conclusions. Did Rowling ever touch on the issues of divorce and early marriage? And more to the point…
Do we know that Dumbledore wasn’t openly gay? Just because it never came up in conversations that were presented to us in the books doesn’t mean it wasn’t well-known to the other characters. In fact, I’d be very surprised if the teachers at Hogwarts didn’t know.
Dumbledore always had the courage of his convictions. Even if homosexuality isn’t acceptable in the wizarding community (as the quotee surmises), I doubt that he would feel compelled to keep up appearances. He would do whatever he felt was right, and never worry about what people thought of him.
At least, that’s the impression I got of Dumbledore. Am I wrong?
Having now plowed through the 115 impassioned comments to the post, it does appear that most of the married couples get married young (and those who don’t rarely ever do), and stick together for life. Lots of debate over the topic, but that seems, generally, to be the case. The only cases of divorce/separation/abandonment look to be Muggle/Wizard marriages.
There may be good reasons for the young marriage (e.g., it was very popular after the first Wizard War; it’s an insular community and if you’re a wizard you meet the entire available wizard population at high school, so it’s more likely you’ll pick your mate there) — and, for similar reasons, for the low divorce rate.
If we use an English boarding school as a model, it’s likely that it was known by some and “not seen.” But it may also be that it was known and recognized but that it’s just not something Harry picked up on (being the self-centered whining twit that he so often was).
It’s been taken as proof of (a) it being well-known and not a scandal (b) it being a deep dark secret, and (c) it being something that Rowling was afraid to talk about, that Rita Skeeter’s expose didn’t out him.
Yet we know that Dumbledore could and would keep a secret if he felt that was the wisest thing to do. I’ve little doubt he’d have gone all Gandalf on someone’s head if they were bashing gay students in the halls, but that doesn’t mean he would have been open about his sexuality (which, of any sort, seemed to be absent in the time period we saw).
Yeah, but unless they use all of that profile in the story it is just as much pointess speculation as any fanfic writer. She could as easily say that Dumbledore has a great big blue birthmark in the shape of a phoenix on his bum, but unless she wrote that into the *books* it is pointless and non cannon. Profiles are just so much ink and paper unless they make their way into the story and that is the point that Amanda was trying to make.
Well, you are a history major and reading something and taking what is presented as fact makes a lot of sense in your case, I do the same for the most part, but then I also tend to ponder the plot while not reading (especially mysteries). I also tend to agree that if you are going to use the Kindly Old Wizard trope and then do nothing to counter that trope then you cannot come out later and claim X when X was not presented anywhere in the story. There were a great many places in the last book that this could have been covered…and Rita Skeeter for example could have added the Dumbledore/Grindelwald relationship to her article…or Harry could have found out some how when going through verious memories. She had the whole thing about his sister being hid in the basement and dieing….that has to at least rate at the same level as being in love with Grindelwald if he was hiding that as well, so to claim that he is gay now seems pointless and a missed opportunity.
Considering that the people that would have become unhinged over such a reveal are the same folks wanting the books banned due to witchcraft/Satanism/Unchristianism reasoning already, it may not have been such a hugh sales ding…and since it was the last book and she already has more money then she knows what to do with she could very much have been “unlikely to Care” and it would not hurt anyone but WB.
Exactly.
As he grew older I could see him being very open about it and it being a non-issue, but again it was not dealt with in this way.
Yes and no. The profile can inform actions of the character without it being actually stated. It’s not dissimilar to method acting — an actor figuring out his “motivation,” even if it’s not in the script. That can provide, even through unconfirmed hints, greater depths to a character.
It can also be, as you suggest, pointless if the profile’s info doesn’t have any impact — or if that impact then has to be explained (like a punchline, it’s not funny if you have to explain it). So it might be interesting to note that Dumbledore used to hike in the Cotswalds when he was a kid — and that might be a pattern that leads to something that does in fact come out (or provide grist for details that never do make it to print — like the Black family tree).
For something more significant, it is, in some ways, pointless if it never comes out (so to speak). If Rowling noted that Dumbledore was actually in constant consultation with Black Lectroids, it would be a true head-scratcher, since there’s absolutely no sign of it, or no sign of any sort of consultation on his part.
Was there enough of a hint that AD was gay? That seems to be a matter of some speculation. I didn’t see it, but I can see it there now that it’s been pointed out. No sign of Black Lectroids, though.
I agree that it should have been presented more clearly, at least a bit. I don’t mind that it didn’t come out until late — because Dumbledore’s story (at least as far as Harry is concerned) is one of hidden secrets and deceit. Given that every book seems to end with Dumbledore apologizing for keeping something from Harry …
I’m not so sure of that. Sadly, a lot of folks who are willing to have fairy tale magic in their stories would still likely throw a hissy fit over a key plot point being a hidden gay romance and lovers quarrel in Dumbledore’s past.
I disagree — but, then, we also don’t know how Wizard society thinks of homosexuality.
Or, conversely, given the whole Grindlevalts affair as a whole and what was known or whispered about it, I could see AD sitting on the information (completely aside from how painful it was) so as not to make it any more scandalous, or provide any further weapons. He might well have not wanted to give his enemies any more weapons, even in so much as letting them know a major aspect of it by being openly gay later.
Heck, again, given how overall controlling and secretive AD was — quite apart from his virtuous acts — I could easily believe he was steadfastly closeted for decades.
Ahh, true, we really do not know what the Wizard Society thinks of Homosexuality. which again why this whole AD being gay is such an odd reveal after the fact.
But, since it seems to be some sort of Leave it to Beaver/smallsville kind of outlook one would have to assume it is not something to have folks knowing about. Which again I guess it would be a BIG HUGE SECRET like AD’s sister and mother…and something that Rita Skeeter would have printed in a Daily Prophet minute. And with the Death Eaters out to undermine everything that AD and Hogwarts stood for that would have been front page news.
So in JKR’s mind AD is gay…nothing mentioned….no potentially strong gay character…and a reveal that could do as much damage if she had just put a little something in the last book. Something I would think a 16 or 17 year old could deal with based on current US trends.
Also, Dr. Who is a children’s show, and there was no fall out about Capt. Jack being Bi.
I think that Capt Jack is Tri – You have to factor in the aliens
Oh…
Very true Margie. 🙂
Or maybe it’s Try Sexual.
There were a few times, especially during exposition passages about his relationship with Grindelwald, where the thought he might be gay did occur to me on the first reading. But since it made no difference to the plot or the fundamental nature of his character, I set it aside and kept reading. Given that it changes nothing, I don’t really see the point in bringing it up now if she wasn’t going to do so in the books.
Margie/BD: I think the phrase used with Capt. Jack is “omnisexual.” “Deeply troubled” might work, too, given some of the trauma’s he’s lived (perhaps) through, but that’s another subject …
BD: True — if it were something deeply scandalous, Rita & Co. would have run with it (or hinted at it). So … I dunno.
Dodd: The best thing I can think of is to compare it to a GM after the campaign is over saying, “Oh, and did you realize that Count Asferiel was really the secret overlord of the Cult of Disnarion? No, really, that’s why he wasn’t at the Moondog Ball the night you guys snuck out of town.” The backstory is there, and whether it’s pertinent or not, the Author wants to get it out in the open. In this case, JKR seems to have had it in mind, and, for whatever reasons, for most readers it seems not to have made a difference in the *story* (whether it makes a difference to the readers is another matter).
My opinion is that the series got out of JKRowling’s control to some extent…she couldn’t have possibly put herself down in a chair and said, “the resolution between Harry and Ginny should go like this“. Other things, too, slipped by the wayside, but that’s the one that bugged me.
Personally, I say she probably planned to do more with Dumbledore being gay, but the subplot got away from her.
I’ll take the revelation as 1) trivia and 2) a boost to the odds-and-ends encyclopedia thingy she’s doing.
NPR’s take on the Subject.
I don’t read the books, but I remember thinking that Dumbledore had some gay mannerisms when I saw Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. I wonder if the actor (Michael Gambon?) knew that Dumbledore was gay or not?