www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Dumbledore is...gay?

Unless one already exists I imagine that there will be a time when a reference book is put together by Rowling to fill in the back story of the series which an author creates in order to justify motivation and the subtle characteristics of the characters in a book. Is he the only gay character and will the 'love story' be told in that compilation?

Terry

I guess I didn't think about the movie aspect. Probably because I simply cannot stomach the movies. They are so ... insipid and uninspiring. They are lacking in all the nuances that make the books a worthwhile read.

I suppose it could be problematic to see how the movies handle this "revelation." Ultimately, though the books are more likely to last than the movies and the books really belong to the reader. The characters are what you imagine them to be. Since the sexual aspects of Dumbledore aren't part of the story in the books I don't see it as being hugely important.

I'm with you Carole

I honestly wonder why it is so long after the book came out that JK Rowling chose to make this statement - I wonder how the sales figures are doing hmmmmmmmmmmmm

It's no good - I've just got one of those suspicious minds

Jason,

Your points are well made, and if in fact she had said "Yes, Dumbledore is an heroic and virtuous sufferer of SSAD who has lived chastely and is an example that it is indeed possible to struggle and be chaste." my opinion would be very, very different. No - she threw it out there willy nilly "Dumbledore's gay" and then said that she did it to teach us to be tolerant.

I think yours is a more favorable read on what is in fact a less than favorable act.

My issue within is not that I somehow fear and detest people with SSAD. I would have to effectively banish several colleagues and bosses whom I dearly respect as friends were that to be the case! NO - this is the issue of a children's author who has used the popularity of her fiction to hoist upon unsuspecting parents a social agenda. Had she stated upfront somehow that one of the main mentors of the protagonist would be a homosexual, I would not have had as much of an issue. I would have read the books first and then more than likely advised my children against it.

Rather she waits for the moment that her story is fully developed and the characters well established as some of the most beloved in modern liturature and movies, and then throws out a cheap thrill to the media who ask salacious questions concerning the sexual habits of children's lit characters. (It reminds me of questions that were frequently asked of Jim Henson regarding Ernie and Bert. "Are they gay?" the enquiring inquisitors would ask him. "They're puppets." was his retort.)

Some variation of that should have been Rowling's response. Instead she elected to pander. It was just simply pathetic.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: One of my favorite books, Father Elijah by Michael O'Brien seems to portray one of the main characters as a homosexual who is repentant at the end of his life. His final deathbed confessions was one of the most beautiful things I have ever read.

Well . . . . perhaps this anecdote may help to put things in perspective. The Saturday Evening Post was, many decades ago, an immesely popular weekly magazine in the USA. They often had short stories - novelettes, really - that ran for several episodes in successive issues. They also prided themselves on never publishing anything contrary to good morals.

Well, one episode ended with a man and a woman alone in an apartment one evening. The next episode began with the same man and the same woman, alone in the same apartment, having breakfast the following morning. This produced quite a flurry of correspondence.

The flurry of correspondence ran for a couple of issues, and was closed by the following statement from the Editorial Board:

"The Editorial Board of the Saturday Evening Post assumes no responsibility whatever for the conduct of fictional characters between episodes!"

Somehow, I've always enjoyed that.

Fr. Serge

LOL!

Here is an amusing article someone passed along to me entitled: "Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet". Apparently even those who are quite sympathetic with "outting" find her announcement somewhat troubling.

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1674550,00.html

Personally, I think it to be an afterthoughtlessthought.

Gordo

Gordo,

Fr Elijah is a wonderful book and the scene you described stayed with me long after I read it. Obrien certainly understands human nature.

Jason

Jason,

It really is quite profound. It humanizes all who fall and inspired me to want to be a priest after I read it - if only so that I could hear confessions like that one!

God bless,

Gordo

I thought this was a very cowardly act by Ms. Rowling. Now that she is a billionaire and the series ended she makes Dumbledore gay, when there was not any hint of it in the books. It doesn't cost her anything to be pro-gay now. If she felt so strongly about it, why wasn't it stated in book 1? Because she knew the outcry from the Christian Right would be far greater than the faction that accused her of seducing kids into witchcraft. She would have sold far fewer books and she wouldn't be a billionaire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in Great Britain, or at least in England, among he aristocracy, it was normal for a man's first love to be with another man. Whether that love was consummated or not was irrelevant. The fact is that it was expected that a male aristocrat would have his first love be of the same gender. As in "Brideshead Revisited." Does that mean we should now revile the entire generation of males in England (or Great Britain) who went through this rite of passage? Some of whom, by the way, turned out to be heroes during the second World War? Did it matter what they did in school when it came time to defend their country? The answer is no, of course it did not matter.

So does it really matter if Dumbeldore is gay? Especially if it doesn't come through in the books? I don't think so. Will Hollywood make a big deal of it in the movie versions? I don't know. They've been known to do just about anything to make a buck. But it still does not change the written word in the book version. I have not read any of the books. I've seen the movies. And I don't care if Dumbledore is gay or not. He's doing the right thing. And that's what counts. Just like the men in England who went through "crushes" in school and then gave their lives defending their country against Hitler.

Tim

Ahhh. Homosexuality is now a rite of passage. I see. Far be it from us to question what amounts to a cultural norm!

No one here is "reviling" anyone. Rowling was pandering, plain and simple. She used her fiction as a trojan horse for a social agenda.

God bless,

Gordo

But Tim is right and I think that he makes a good point, not just about England, but about many parts of Europe down through history (through the middle ages and modernity). And certainly this was true in ancient Greece. In 19th century Victorian England and in ancient Greece, the love relationship between two men, one older (the teacher, mentor) and one younger (the student) was accepted and considered normal. The ancient Greeks and Romans went so far as to consider it in accordance with nature. The Victorians on the other hand accepted it as long as you didn't talk about it in public.

I am not saying that their view is right. But it would not be without precedent to have some, at least vague, homoerotic elements to a coming of age novel (or group of novels). Homosexuality has always been prevalent among the educated, literary classes.

Now, let's be honest about Rowling. She is no Tolkien. She is a decent writer of fantasy stories and her work has some merit, but the Harry Potter series is not going to go down in history as one of the greats of English literature. I confess that I couldn't get through the first book because her writing style annoyed me so much (yes, I'm a snob). So, I've just relied on the movies instead.

Joe

I'm thinking that the parochial schools that have been suspicious of those books will probably throw them out for good. I am expecting that any day in my school library since the Dumbledore revelation.

Joe,

Relying on the movies is a really bad idea. As Jo Rowling grew in experience as an author so did her writing style and the content of the books. The first book was very much a children's book. But somewhere along the line it changed to be something much more captivating.

I read the first three books out of a sense of parental duty (I wanted to know what the fuss was all about so I could make an informed decision when my daughter reached the age to ask to read them). I read the last 4 because I really wanted to.

The movies do not convey many subplots and nuances that are contained in the later books.

That said, you're right. This is not great literature.

I think that this was both a cowardly act on Rowling's part and a flash in the pan controversy. Neither her books nor her comments are likely to be around long enough to have any significant and lasting impact.