This revelation, particularly after the fact, bothers me. Why sexualize a character in a children’s series, particularly when it has played no part in 4,224 pages?
Somehow I feel manipulated… broad-sided…betrayed. For Rowling to have a subversive agenda in her character development is certainly her prerogative; but the admission well after her last words were penned leaves me thinking less of her, not more (despite the ovation and accolade she’s receiving).
No matter what, though, she’s a brilliant author, she brought to life a host of characters who compelled children (and adults!) to read thousands of pages, she created words and worlds that held us captive, hanging on cliff after cliff simply because there was spectacular substance behind her style…
…and even as I bang out a softly-spoken rant on my keyboard, I realize IF she had this in mind from the beginning, it’s sad? unfortunate? [I can’t seem to grasp the word I’m looking for…:/] that had she revealed this early on, thousands would have missed out on one of the greatest literary adventures of our time.
“and even as I bang out a softly-spoken rant on my keyboard, I realize IF she had this in mind from the beginning, it’s sad? unfortunate? [I can’t seem to grasp the word I’m looking for…:/] that had she revealed this early on, thousands would have missed out on one of the greatest literary adventures of our time.”
That’s probably exactly why she waited until after they were all written to share this information. She probably felt that the extreme readers out there would want to know the truth about the character so that’s why she shared.
Then again, I’ve never read the books, so I just might want to shut up.
i know so little about this, but i thought it was very odd, what i read yesterday. “oh, by the way, that character of mine? he’s gay.”
seems like if he were gay, the gayness should have been part of the story, even in a very muted way. he is what he is, right?
but, like nikki above, i’m not a big reader of the books (only read one of ’em), so my comments are steeped in ignorance.
btw, robin, i took your advice and changed the comment settings on my blogs. now i’m sure *all* the lurkers will post!
people get addicted to media attention. She just needed her fix.
I don’t write fiction, but my first thought upon getting up to speed on this is that she should not tell us anything more. The books should stand creatively on their own strength as she wrote them, and whatever we are supposed to understand or know about her characters should be strong enough to see in the text. If it’s subtle and people wonder, let it remain a bit shrouded in mystery. If it’s not there at all, then it doesn’t matter.
Lots of writers of fiction (and actors) create long background profiles on their characters, deciding if they love or hate peanut butter, what their first kiss was like, how they feel on a bad hair day, whether or not they wear leather shoes or avoid manmade fabrics. These details may never come out in the story, but it helps the creator really know the otherwise fabricated “person” that they’re writing about.
If peanut butter never figures into the story, then that was just background work for the writer. If Rowling wants to write another book called “The Secret Life of Albus Dumbledore” next year, then that’s fine, I guess. That’s her creative choice as a writer. But I don’t think it is appropriate to show us the tools she put in place to help her know her characters in the now-complete series unless it was already part of the plot.
I wonder if one reason it could generate odd feelings is because Albus and Harry were so close. If two males were so close…and Albus is homosexual…….was there also a subtext to *their* relationship? One could be tempted to go back and re-read lines and explore a subtext in everything that Albus said.
Or just shrug and move on.
I would think it’s an interesting and helpful question for fiction writers to explore–when a piece of fiction, whether short story or novel, is completed, should we continue to comment on background details about the characters that may affect the way readers experience the work? Or should it speak for itself?
That got long. Sorry for hogging so much comment space.
I agree, what’s the point, now?
Since it never played much of a role (his sexuality) in the books, does it really matter? Does she want MORE groups banning the books?
It doesn’t really seem to be her style.
Nikki, I can’t help but wonder if this was really speculated about–it NEVER crossed my mind! THESE ARE (AT HEART) CHILDREN’S BOOKS! At what point did they become agendized?
Laurie, again…did she have this in mind at the beginning? If so, it was better hidden than the Sorcerer’s Stone.
And let me know how that works out for ya…I wonder how many peeps lurk here w/out saying a word….
Pamela, you’d think with more money than the Queen, she’d be fine without the additional attention. Gracious…I hope she doesn’t shave her head and start recklessly clubbing!
Ann, NO APOLOGIES, SUGAH…I really appreciated your contemplated thoughts. Two of mine in response to yours:
1) “The books should stand creatively on their own strength as she wrote them, and whatever we are supposed to understand or know about her characters should be strong enough to see in the text. If it’s subtle and people wonder, let it remain a bit shrouded in mystery.”
You articulated well the heart of my thinking; and the point is, they DO stand on their own strength without further conjecture (imho).
2) “I would think it’s an interesting and helpful question for fiction writers to explore–when a piece of fiction, whether short story or novel, is completed, should we continue to comment on background details about the characters that may affect the way readers experience the work? Or should it speak for itself?
Obviously, I’m not a fiction writer, either, but I wonder how the “well-knowns” would weigh in on this. Certainly, there’s the whole element of extending your 15 minutes of fame, but is it “fair” to a reader essentially to alter impression of a character?
Bottom line, and maybe what rubbed me the wrong way to begin it all, was I feel VERY Trojan horsed…as a devoted fan, I don’t appreciate an agenda tied to character.
Oooo, Lisa, I got wrapped up and almost didn’t see ya (lol). That IS true, it doesn’t seem to be consistent to what we’ve seen of Rowling.
I also think it was unnecessary and out of character. I am now thinking back on some of the wonderful novels I have read and thanking God that their authors died without imparting any incredibly superfluous addendums about their characters. Although, I always did wonder about Ashley Wilkes….
why would she “share” that…it was not necessary to the story…kids don’t really care cause it is the magic that pulled them in…adults don’t care because all they care about is that their kids are reading anything at all…just like ann up there said…maybe she just needed to stay in the news for another 15 minutes…
I’m having Barney and Tinky Winky flashbacks. Just let him RIP.
Okay, I have written and deleted several times now so I am going to sign off.
Here’s the thing, though, Robin: Rowling has no more right than you or I to say anything more on Dumbledore’s sexuality.
Sure, she may have pages and pages of character notes that have never been published, so doesn’t she know the character better than we do?
Not necessarily. She may know more things, more experiences, but if she did her job well, she does not know the character any better. That character comes alive in my head and in your head.
Whatever she didn’t show or tell in the novel is hearsay and unnecessary.
Well, I could say, “Isn’t that exactly how Satan works? Once you’re hooked, then…” But that probably wouldn’t be fair, since I haven’t read anything by her. That always manages to ruffle my daughters feathers though (who has read all the books). 🙂
I do think it is odd that this is brought up now. I could philosophize about it indefinitely…well, for a while anyway. Robinella made me laugh with her comment.
My husband actually mentioned this to me the other night and I’d been looking for an article about it. We’ve read all the books and seen the movies.
The point I agreed with was this one,
“If you think about it, the books are from Harry’s perspective, and there’s no reason for Harry to know about Dumbledore’s sex life,” she said.
And I’m with you it leaves me feeling sad. For me I don’t see what revealing this fact adds to the story, to her own agenda maybe, but not to the story. Then again, I’m not really a writer, just an avid reader.
It just changes my perspective on my wanting to read or see anymore from her.
Sandy…your last line was HILARIOUS!!
Kerith, I’m not sure if you read it or not, but having read through the series with my daughter (from the time she was in second or third grade, she’s a freshman now), it wasn’t even the magic that pulled us both in…it was Rowling’s ability to weave a magical story. Subtle difference, but one worth noting. Your question of “Why now” is valid, though (at least to me).
Robinella, NOW you’ve got me curious!
Heather, I N T E R E S T I N G thought, I certainly have never looked at a character that way–that once the author “delivers” him/her, it’s ours to continue creating in the folds of our own imagination and perspective. You’re a writer, so I take your thoughts to heart. I do believe her postscript is unnecessary (going back to what Ann said–it stands on its own merit).
Dan, Well hi there, stranger :). You magically re-appear and you’re RUFFLIN’ FEATHERS?? I’m curious what Carrie Jade said in response to you. Believe me…I’ve had people tell me I was going to hell for reading the books and they were horrified I’d let my daughter read them, too. My husband, thought not 100% convinced, relented to my leading (since I was reading them, too). I can’t help it, when I hear accusations against the Harry Potter, I hear the law coming to life (and goodness knows, I’ll rebel against that;) ).
Beckie, kind of like ping-pong, huh? Back and forth, back and forth. Several facets to this gem, eh?
Christine, you snuck in while I was writing that last comment (snuck is SO a word!). Because I think Rowling is a gifted author, I’d read her again; I’d just wonder what her agenda was this time :/.
It bothered me when I first heard it. Then thought about it and realized what did it matter to me. I was done with the books and would probably never read them again. If I did, would be looking for “it”. Someone pointed out this blog:
http://hogwartsprofessor.com/
It’s a really long winded article about the whole thing, but kinda puts everything in perspective from the people who were actually there.
I still think it is ridiculous to even bring it up at this point in time. But like someone else said, if she had stated it in the beginning, a great many people would have missed reading a fascinating series of books.
Robin
heh heh heh. i love sandy’s ashley wilkes reference. good question….
Robin, I think that you have covered the point proficiently. It probably does not matter one way or the other that Dumdledore was supposed to be gay. His sexuality appropriately was not part of the story. Of course, Rowling as the creator is free to think of him as gay as part of the character devlopment. But since the kindly wizard was not hitting on the little witches or wizards, what is the point with the big revelation?
I asked the same question when I heard this on the news. I can only assume that his is a cynical attempt at increasing the already huge readership by going after the niche markets.
Here’s something to ponder, does she mean the first Dummydoor or the second? And since Ian McKellen is gay, does that make Gandalf the gay instead of Gandalf the grey?
WTF? Why would she say this? Is she looking for more publicity? Now that the initial furor has died down she needs to drum some up again?
I always thought there was probably past possibilities b/n him and McGonnagal (you know, when they were younger, before he became headmaster and her boss). In my heart – there was and still is. Gay, puhleeze.
i wondered why now, was it totally necessary, is there another media pr angle…..it just seemed unnecessary to bring it up now….
When I read the headline to the Mister, he got genuinely pissed. And I understood why. Gay, straight, S&M addict. Who cares? The character development was done and over with a LONG time ago. She should have left any speculation or curiousity as JUST THAT!
Robin, I’m not about to let that “revelation” affect my affections for the series. It stands as.is.
MJD, I can assure you, if the book went THAT direction…Rowling wouldn’t be richer than the Queen Mother….
WT, apparently she needs more money. Or maybe I’m just bein’ cynical ;). Your follow-up comment-questions made me grin.
Karmyn, I KNEW you’d feel that way when you saw it!
EJ, I wonder how much of it is rooted in dollars and cents.
Amanda, yeah, but lookie here, WE’RE talkin’ about it, so I guess I’m just a product of “no press is bad press” :/
I think it sucks too! I keep thinking back over all the books and I don’t think it was even insinuated anywhere, as everything else was. Did she want more attention? Or is she writing the back story as a new book, and wants the attention. I just find it odd, but I have absolutely no problem with the homosexuality part- just the part where it seems to come out of thin air.
It was totally unnecessary and a bit of an odd thing to do but it hasn’t spoilt my enjoyment of the books – they were fantastic. I will definitely read anything else she writes.
Re Fun Monday there is already a t-shirt about this issue! http://www.dumbledorepride.com/ although I don’t think the likeness is that good!
I’m pretty upset about this too. I’m not ever going to tell my children when they are old enough to read the Potter series. I really loved those books. Why now?
hmmm! That is so weird. The comment I made shows it was made by you and the comment below which says I made it, I didn’t. What happened?
I’m sorry I missed all this yesterday!
A good friend of mine and I were just discussing this yesterday morning. She had an interesting theory. As you know, a lot of Christians in America oppose this series because of the witchcraft/wizardry. My friend, who has read the series (I have not) AND is a Christian, wonders if possibly Rowling said these things just to further get under the skin of these “opposers.” (Is that a word?) Maybe she simply created this story just for a little fun.
…something worth considering, I suppose.
I just knew, knew, knew you would blog about this. Chip told Zac and I when I got home from work on Tuesday, and at first we both wondered how he’d heard about it before us “true Potter fans” and then we just thought he was full of it. You have to know that the after those thougts ran through my mind, I told Zac while I was making dinner……”Go to Robin’s blog. I know she’ll have something to say about this”. Of course it wasn’t posted yet.
Well, I was just mad. It really disgusts me and it’s not even about her saying he’s gay. My feeling is she’s had a taste of the press and she was missing it. Blatant self promotion. Disgusting.
Whew! I feel better.
Jenn, apparated, huh? 😉
Alix, it does disappoint me in JKR, but only because it seems so self-serving and after the fact. I saw the tee, and geez…isn’t THAT taking advantage of current events!
Lani, I wonder if my kids have heard this–it’s only a matter of time :/. Hmmm, I’d welcome the conversation it’d inspire, though.
Robin, are you sure? I checked and re-checked and it looks “right” to me :).
OOps! HA! I’ll take care of it ;).
Susan, I hadn’t thought of that angle, but at this point, I think anything’s possible!
Ebay, am I THAT predictable (ha!). Your last paragraph is my feeling…the furor has waned and she found a way to stir things up again. What an appetite…:/.
(hugs to your not-so-baby boy, girl and boy 😉 ).
Although I never really thought of Dumbledore as gay per se, I always knew he wasn’t a… how should I put this? Traditional romantic? I just pictured him as one of those people who would not fall in love with just anybody. Obviously, the homosexual population is limited to who they can have a relationship with.
If you read the interview, J.K. says it in response to the question, “So, did Dumbledore ever find true love?” If she would have said he was gay in the books, it would have sparked even more controversy than it has now. It was irrelevant to the story for the most part, although it may have fit in with the Grindelwald (who was the first male Albus fell in love with) flashback part.
In my honest opinion, it shouldn’t really matter WHEN she told the public but THAT she told them. Unlike most fiction series, the Harry Potter series was left wide open. It seemed to me that it was mostly fan service to tell that he was gay. I, a huge fan, am glad to know that. It might help me understand a little bit more of the series as I re-read it.
Zaaaaaac! Thanks for weighing in, young scribe :). INTERESTING perspective you have. While I don’t share your opinion, it’s obviously well thought. I respect what you have to say BECAUSE you have read the series and can speak with “authority”.
For this to have come into play during the series (imho) would have shifted the focus of a boy, his friends and their adventures, to an agenda; I don’t see any way around that. To have included something THAT controversial in a CHILDREN’S SERIES would have been agendized.
Again (I feel like I’m repeating myself, so forgive me), the books stood on their own without further information or insight into the characters…I simply didn’t need “more”.
Then again, I would contend (using your same logic) that ANY body of fiction could be served by additional information after the fact. Then, an author would NEVER be “done” and he/she could almost re-write “history” to suit their wishes; once the fans were hooked, loving the characters, we could learn “deep, dark secrets” that changed virtually everything, particularly how you filtered the characters.
Thanks, again…I love it when you share your brain :).