Explain this to me...I don't get it.

On ESPN one of the commentators said something along the lines of...." <insert players name> came out like Dumbledore..."

And then today in my school newspaper someone wrote an article on how JK Rowling intended him to be gay....why was this thrown into it? Was there textual evidence of this? I'm just curious.

From what I've heard, there was an "ask the author" conference, and some girl asked if Dumbledore ever found love. Rowling simply responded with "he's gay."

I think it's stupid and adds nothing to the story, but they're her characters so whatever.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787

Shruggage. I didn't see anything that indicated it to me, but if you go back over it and look for it there might be a little. Otherwise it's just this little thing in the mind of the author.

He makes Kefka look like Casanova.

Actually I quite like the idea since it adds an extra facet to his relationship with Grindelthingiemapuff. (what the hell was his name again?)

How is it stupid? Since when has homosexuality become a plot point and not a facet of a character?

Is this "Make Kefka Our Sig" week?

Also: Yeah. Really no point to it. Big whoop.

Exactly.

So what him being gay doesn't add to the story, it lets us know a little more about a character that kept most things about himself secret.

At least she didn't say that Harry abuses Ginny, hence, her apparent lack of say in the naming of their children.

It's more along the lines of he could've been read either way. She could have just as easily called Neville or the Weasley twins or Voldemort gay, because there isn't any evidence for or against it in the books. I have no problem with the character being gay, I just think it seems like a "hey, pay even more attention to me" statement.

I think she just said what she thought of him as. It's her character and that's how she saw him. She answered the question she was asked truthfully.

Eh, I'm more with Grimes.

If anybody could post any kind of lines from earlier books that hint at it or allude to it, I might even like the idea.

But if she just eventually decided "LOL what if Dumbledore's gay?" and then decided to shock a bunch of people, mehhhhhhh.

So much of dumbledores life is missing from the books. The guy was over 100 years old when he died and the books only covered 7 years.

Stupid, has no relevance to the plot, and it's obvious she made it up at the last second to be controversial.

I don't even really care for the HP books, Rowling should keep her personal beliefs out of a fantasy story.

huh

Huh what? Making a character suddenly gay when there's no plot to back it up doesn't have a point. All it does is get people all riled up and political.

Exactly!

It's just for publicity.

Yeah but what personal beliefs of hers should she keep out of her novels? Her interpretation of her own characters? She wrote the books, there may be no plot to back it up but there was no plot to refute it either. And according to her clarification to the question presented to her on the subject, he was gay.

You probably know more about her than I do, but I don't see any reason to view this as politically loaded/motivated or some petty publicity ploy coming from her.

I don't think she did make him suddenly gay at all. She spent a lot of years on these books. It stands to reason that not every detail is going to make it on the page. His role in the books was as a teacher/father figure/mentor. His sexuality wasn't important for that. Therefore it didn't get mentioned. And let's face it, if she had people would have gone into a total panic. I have no idea why so many people try to equate gayness with paedophilia but it seems to be the first stop for the ignorant. She probably got enough grief to be going on with.

I think if you look at that relationship he had with that wizard it isn't such a jump to accept though.

Neil Gaiman said it better. Edit: fixed the link. Whoops.

^404 error'd

The thing is, I don't think she did have it in mind for a long time. She obviously had some of the series planned out, but she didn't really foreshadow the plot all that great, just inserted a couple of minor characters or words that came into play a little more later. And when there's no textual evidence to back up his being gay...what's the point?

Does there have to be textual evidence? It's her character, what she says goes. I honestly don't think she thought to herself beforehand "If anyone asks me about Albus' sexuality, I'll say he's a poof - that'll rattle some feathers." She was asked a question and she gave the answer she felt was most correct, there's not really anymore of a point to it than having said "Well, he had some lady friends in the past but nothing ever worked out, he was far too brilliant a man to be tied down."

It's sad that given the reaction to this elaboration (like more details about Dumledore's feelings towards Grindlewald) probably won't be in the Potterpedia.

Also:

I'm not sure that's the case. Once you put that book out there, it takes on a life of its own. While you're writing it, sure, you're the sole authority, the god of your own universe. But it's a pretty common thing for writers to unknowingly put in layers of meaning that they didn't even intend. At that point, it's up to the reading public to decide.

Of course this is all pretty irrelevant, as it's got not story implications.

What?

If this doesn't work in English class, it sure as hell doesn't work on a book of this magnitude. With no more HP books, JK Rowling does shit like this for publicity. You can't invent a character, then a while later say "Oh, by the way...". If you don't make it clear when you invent the character, and you don't even imply it in the text, then you're just bullshitting.

Well, she could of always seen him as gay, but never put it in the book because it's technically a "kids" book. A lot of right wing parents wouldn't want their child reading about a kid and his ultra gay cult leader.

That's why she says it now, solely for recognition.

Oh I agree. She gots to stir up the shit somehow. I actually agree with you and think she just made it all up to sell a few more books.

Like she needs the publicity to sell more of the bestselling fantasy book ever

Why not. More books, more money. Best selling or not. If it's gonna sell more, why not do it.

why would she do this for publicity, when she has fought all her career for her right to privacy and to keep pictures of herself and her family out of tabloids, she has sold so many books and made so much money she is basically putting all of the current profits into philanthropy, and she has never in her career done any cheap publicity stunts?

all because this is her last book? what? All of that is placing way too much personal intent into her actions and is ill informed.

Because shes not really a capitalist or an entrepeneur

I guess. I really don't know shit about her, or the books. I'm just saying how it looks. But hey, you're probably right.

If she was doing it for recognition and publicity this seems like the kind of shit she would've come out and said before the last book came out. There's no real recognition here outside of America, any country that would've blown a gasket over the gay thing already got up in arms over the witch-craft thing.

People keep saying she should've worked it into the books, but that wouldn't have even made sense. Dumbledore was an incredibly private character and most of the shit that revealed about him in the last book was barely confirmed or believed by the other characters, and the only characters that could've possibly known Dumbledore was gay (Grindlewald and his brother - and even then that's just a maybe) wouldn't have just blabbed that shit.

I'm not saying she should've worked it in, I'm saying she should've hinted at it.

Then again, maybe that's what the famous gleam in his eyes when he was talking to Harry in book two (or was it three?) was about.

Or maybe somebody knows of some kind of slight hinting at it, in which case I actually like it. But if she just said it even ostensibly because that's how she thinks of him but there's nothing to corroborate with that I think it's silly.

Please don't turn this into pedophilia.

I'm with you guys.

I have no problem with him being gay, it doesn't take anythign away from the story.

I think the manner in which she just threw it out there was stupid. Now that her books are done and there wasn't the suspense of another book, it seemed like she threw it out there for attention. And that my friends is gay...errr I mean stupid.

My answer to this:

This is pretty much the end of her career. No matter what else she does, it will be compared to HP, and she will never outdo herself. Now she's just some rich atheist out to stir up what she can.

Uh, you realize she is actually Christian? Like I said, it just goes to show alot of people don't know alot about her or the literary field. An author of her stature's career is really only over when they stop writing, like J.D. Salinger and Harper Lee. Stephen King didn't stop publishing after The Stand, neither did Thomas Pynchon after he published Gravity's Rainbow. And like I said shes not really a hoarding her money over it either, she has basically dumped almost all the profits from the last two books into philanthropic ventures. There is so much assumption over this is all, it just baffles my mind.

Judging by your atheist comment you don't know much about religion either. Shes a member of the Church of Scotland which is a Presbyterian church, and the majority of the Prebyterian churchs out there allow homosexuals into their congregations and clergy and perform civil ceremonies for them when they get married. Other major protestant branches like the Lutheran Church and United Church of Christ have similar views and policies.

You guys have to realize that this isn't the first time an author has added depth to their story after the books have been finished. Tolkien, for years after the release of Lord of the Rings, wrote letters concerning characters, places, events, and many other things which have become regarded as canon.

As for homosexuality being associated with pedophilia, the thought process there is that one form of deviance may as well not be separated from another. Which is ignorance epitomized...

Yea, he came on my face. Thrice.

I agree with the TOlkien statement on adding on to the stories.

But JK's stories are a little different from King's etc....her books are a long trilogy. And much like Star Wars actors with such a huge cult following, her career could take a nose dive. Not to mention, similar to Star Wars/LoTR, most people hate it or love it, which also can ruin your career. Because the people that even love it are often hard to please. But that's more of a movie comparison to books. I'd be surprised if she ever writes another book half as popular as the Harry Potter saga.

Whatever her reasoning, attention or character development, I still don't get the point. It just seems so irrelevant and random. But hey if it even makes a handful of kids change their opinions on faggots, then why not.

Thread Necromancy, I know, but I couldn't help it.

Wikipedia: Death of the Author

Post-Structuralism for the..... well, you can't ever really "win" or "lose" when operating under that framework....

LoL how did I miss this.