Today's strangest news

[andrewducker]

Dumbledor is Gay.

Officially.

(cheers to slammerkinbabe)

Now - is it bad that it never came up, thus depriving children of a gay role model, or good that it wasn't considered such a big thing that it even needed to be mentioned?

Comments

[grapefruitzzz.livejournal.com]

Firstly it's sloppy authorship for her to roam the earth's newspapers making added comments to her book a few months after its publication. Secondly it's having her liberal cake and eating it - she gets to look all inclusive and gay-friendly without losing key under-18 demographics in high-yield markets.

BTW, your icon is aces.

[ripperlyn.livejournal.com]

Good point.

I think it's good, though. I remember vague references to Dumbledore's 'unhealthy interets in Harry Potter' and if he'd been outed in the books surely that would have just been one more stereotype?

[grapefruitzzz.livejournal.com]

I like the atypical gayness and the 'politics clouded by teen love' story, it's just a bit annoying that she's making all these apres-book remarks. I won't become canon until I say so she publishes that encyclopaedia.

[mb2u]

I agree, totally. I am very disappointed in J.K. now.

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

So much of the fun is speculating about the characters. She's being very mean by taking that away from us. Dumbledore being gay does make a certain amount of sense, but because he was such a very very asexual character anyway, it's completely irrelevant. Maybe she was trying to imply it in the final book with the Grindlewald story line, but had to be subtle about it and is now frustrated that nobody got it. In which case, very sloppy indeed.

The other possibility is that she was fibbing for fun. I would.

[hfnuala.livejournal.com]

Or bad that the only person he fell in love with was a scary fascist psycho?

[andrewducker]

I have heard that falling in love with scary fascist psychos can put you off ever having a relationship again :->

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Both!

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I think it's a shame that for whatever reason she didn't mention this in the books - the HP world is so solidly heteronormative it would have beeen good for there to be some heroic gay figure in the books.

[avatar.livejournal.com]

Does the author really have a right to include a fact like this if they weren't mentioned in the book(s)?

It seems silly even for an author to do this for their own book and want it to be considered canon. At best they could do it only for their own accord.

[amberite.livejournal.com]

I think it's sloppy writing and *brilliant* politics, and now think the fundies were (fortunately for the world) quite right to be scared of her swaying their children.

[andrewducker]

I think an author has the right to say whatever they like. And you have the right to ignore them.

[avatar.livejournal.com]

No no I know that, and that's true and good, but should it be regarded as canon for the series?

[amberite.livejournal.com]

I actually don't think that it deprives children of a gay role model at all.

If she's serious and not just taking the piss (and I do believe she's serious, she manages her PR very well) I think she waited until after all seven books were out on purpose -- so the kids with puritanical parents (at least, ones not too puritanical to ban the thing) could get ahold of the books. More money for JKR, and more cultural influence. She's still sufficiently in the spotlight that everyone's going to hear this, no?

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I'd quite like this to be right.

But actually, she's just fangirling her own books, isn't she? Except she gets to call her fanfic fantasies canon because she wrote the books, which is a flimsy excuse if you ask me.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I actually don't like that she outed him posthumously and post-series completion because I don't think it's a question of its "not being a big thing"; that would work in some books, but not here. I think that outing him in the book would have enhanced the story - she offers his affair with Grindelwald as a reason that he was blinded to Grindelwald's true nature, love/lust clouding his judgment and all that, and if that's part of his motivation (and yes, I find it convincing) then we need to be told that in the book. It's really shoddy writing to leave out something as big and illuminating as that, and it's quite clear to me that she did it to placate the fundies. Which is understandable; there will be a LOT of anger about this, and there would have been even more if she'd written it into the actual books, I'd think. But although I like and respect her for outing him now, I'd have liked and respected her a whole lot more if she'd done it in the books.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Forgetting the books for a moment, what's more interesting is that there are two further movies on the way and they've got a very talented actor playing Dumbledore. It's not over.

I have to be honest and say that it is pretty obvious, certainly in the last book, and that's how I read it. It just isn't that big a deal in itself. Now in a movie... well it'll be harder for people to ignore or misinterpret. And with a built in audience so the studio can't balk and a good actor in the role... goodness me.

I think on balance it's a good move by Rowling. Hee. :-)

[lizzie-and-ari.livejournal.com]

My view on this is in fact that many relationships within HP world are implied, it rarely explicitly says 'ooh he fancied her' yet we take it as read that Hagrid and that French bird were an item, and that Bellatrix LeStrange was on love with Voldemort (yeah I said it).

Had Grindewald been a girl and the only thing that was changed was the pronoun, people would have presumed they had romantic thing.

So maybe it's just people's interpretation of the book that is so damned 'heteronormative'.

(And yes it's a good point about the films - one of the reasons this has become relevant is becaus JK told people to do with the 6th film, who tried to include a line about a girl Dumbledore once liked.)

Lxxx