J.K. Rowling and the Dumbledore Sexual Identity Mystery

[Areloch]

I like how simply not interpreting that a character in a story is gay and asking the author for why they decided to write the character that way now gets you labeled as a homophobe.

This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

 

[Spider RedNight]

The sexual identity of characters is usually thought of as heterosexual, this is not because people are being homophobic as some f***tards think, but because this is the norm, therefore if a character is not heterosexual we expect it to be said or at least implied in the work itself.

I prefer to see all the characters as asexual until other context is provided. As, whether they fancy the opposite sex, the same sex, both or other is irrelevant, until a plot point makes it relevant.

I second this. By extension, the ONLY reason I remotely had a problem (had, past tense) with Dumbledore being gay is that he was... VERY acutely interested in Harry and his well-being which always made me feel kind of awkward but was then multiplied by ten because I was like "oh, was he... hitting on Harry this whole time? Is he "interested"?" but that eventually dissolved because I'm asexual and single and MOST relationships are strange and awkward to me regardless of what gender or sex one chooses to be.

That being said, I don't think either of them were wrong. It was a question asked for curiosity's sake because people DO have different opinions and Rowling is right; people are people, doesn't matter how they look.

I like how simply not interpreting that a character in a story is gay and asking the author for why they decided to write the character that way now gets you labeled as a homophobe.

This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

Also this

 

[Lightknight]

You kinda shot yourself in the foot there when you mentioned Harry and Ron's relationship. Their relationship wasn't like Dumbledore's and Grindlewald's, they didn't spend an obsessive amount of time with each other (to the extent Dumbledore's brother said he was neglecting his family to be with Grindlewald) and they never wrote secret letters to each other.

Harry and Ron is an example of a friendship so close they would literally die for each other. But it's clear that Dumbledore and Grindlewald's was different.

I mean, they would go on adventures together and fight together. But bar mates do that too.

But my point was that Harry and Ron weren't really that close. They regularly argued and Ron assumed the worst in Harry more than one time in ways someone that really knew him wouldn't have assumed.

Friendship is not the same as a bosom buddy.

I don't think this is necessarily true. The whole concept of the "bromance" came out of this. Harry and Ron were incredibly close, but no one thought they were gay. The idea that close friendships can't exist without being confused for homosexuality is, I think, an exaggeration. I like C.S. Lewis's stance on the four loves. Romance is one, but friendship is another. It's possible to love someone, someone you're not related to, without being IN love with them. If what you say is true, then we simply need to expand our concept of love.

Why would you call them "incredibly close"? Did they really talk about their feelings to one another or was it instead the stereotypical friendship via shared experiences rather than dialogue and relationship building?

I think what you're saying is entirely true but you're mistaking what my intention is. I'm not saying that bromance doesn't exist in real life. Quite the opposite. I have a dear friend that I would easily fight to the death to protect. Someone I absolutely love like a brother that I enjoy spending time with. I certainly don't have any romantic feelings for the guy but I would do anything to help him.

My complaint is in story narratives so abusing intimate relationships as being "code for being gay" that it has seriously diminished relationships and narratives of camaraderie. My complaint is in the forced conversion of bromance into romance in media.

I'd like to see more stories like the White Squall or something like that where a bunch of guys can just be loyal intimate friends without being effeminate or gay. Not that there can't be representations of people who are gay. Just that I think both need to coexist more interchangeably to encourage healthy male relationships.

I specify guys though, because no such social construct of distance appears to be imposed on girls.

 

[DrOswald]

Yes, this certainly hints at it.

My only complaint with this sort of increasingly more common storytelling in modern literature is that it robs us of basic camaraderie. Guys should be able to be close and even love one another as friends closer than brothers without it needing to be read into as being "in love" with each-other. It's kind of unfortunate that people can't just be close friends in stories anymore. They can't be 3 musketeers just willing to fight and die for one another, they have to be lovers anymore.

I'd have rather she was more explicit about it in the books to that effect. I have no problem with different sexualities, it's just that the persistence of this narrative as some kind of hidden twist is so common as to make guys distance themselves purposefully so as to maintain status as an available mate. The issue isn't that this mechanism exists, it's just how common it is that makes society assume that intimate yet platonic relationships suddenly HAVE to be sexual. Harry and Ron were friends, but they weren't intimate despite being best friends. Certainly not the same way females can be depicted.

What's more is, I no longer accept the "*gasp* they're gay together" or "*Gasp, the person in the mask is a girl!" as plot twists anymore. Yeah, people are gay and females can do things. It's no longer novel or surprising. It's just one of many facts of life.

You kinda shot yourself in the foot there when you mentioned Harry and Ron's relationship. Their relationship wasn't like Dumbledore's and Grindlewald's, they didn't spend an obsessive amount of time with each other (to the extent Dumbledore's brother said he was neglecting his family to be with Grindlewald) and they never wrote secret letters to each other.

Harry and Ron is an example of a friendship so close they would literally die for each other. But it's clear that Dumbledore and Grindlewald's was different.

While I agree that Dumbledore/Grindlewald is that different from Ron/Harry, I certainly would not take it as evidence of a homosexual relationship.

See, you have to take into account where both were at in their life at the time. Grindlewald was ostracized from his former friends and on the slow track to becoming a dark wizard. He was a loner, essentially cut off from human contact and shunned. Except by Dumbledore, who is the one person who seemed to get his ideas. And not only did he get them, Dumbledore alone of anyone he has ever met is able to operate on his level, discuss ideas at his level.

Dumbledore, on the other hand, was in a really bad place. "So that, when my mother died, and I was left the responsibility of a damaged sister and a wayward brother, I returned to my village in anger and bitterness. Trapped and wasted, I thought!" An extraordinary mind trapped in a dreary and mundane routine. What Dumbledore wanted more than anything was a way out, an escape from the mundane life he was trapped in. And then he meets Grindlwald, someone who matches him in intellect and is constantly challenging him with new ideas and modes of thought.

Dumbledore and Grindlewald were friends because they both were extraordinary minds in stifling situations, and they could fulfill each others social and intellectual needs in a way that few others could.

Harry and Ron were best friends, essentially, because they happened to sit next to each other once on the school bus.

The primary difference between the two relationships, resulting in the different "look" of the relationships to the outside observer, is not sexual. It is the depth of the relationship. Now, relationships with a sexual component more often become deep, and relationships that are deep often become sexual. This is why you associate the signs of a deep of relationships with physical relationships. But it is not a safe assumption to make.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The sexual identity of characters is usually thought of as heterosexual, this is not because people are being homophobic as some f***tards think, but because this is the norm, therefore if a character is not heterosexual we expect it to be said or at least implied in the work itself.

I prefer to see all the characters as asexual until other context is provided. As, whether they fancy the opposite sex, the same sex, both or other is irrelevant, until a plot point makes it relevant.

I second this. By extension, the ONLY reason I remotely had a problem (had, past tense) with Dumbledore being gay is that he was... VERY acutely interested in Harry and his well-being which always made me feel kind of awkward but was then multiplied by ten because I was like "oh, was he... hitting on Harry this whole time? Is he "interested"?" but that eventually dissolved because I'm asexual and single and MOST relationships are strange and awkward to me regardless of what gender or sex one chooses to be.

That being said, I don't think either of them were wrong. It was a question asked for curiosity's sake because people DO have different opinions and Rowling is right; people are people, doesn't matter how they look.

I like how simply not interpreting that a character in a story is gay and asking the author for why they decided to write the character that way now gets you labeled as a homophobe.

This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

Also this

That is a very odd way to look at it.. first of all, Dumbledore felt terribly responsible for not doing more to protect Harry's parents and felt he owed it to Both Harry and his parents to do his best to try to help raise Harry in their absence. He felt responsible for Harry as a parent would, he came across as " motherly" not as " hitting on him." The way he questioned Harry and concerned himself was how a mother questions her own child, and I do not see that as weird at all. He was very good with dealing with Children, that doesn't make him a child predator, that makes him a mentor.

He was supposed to be interested in Harry, he felt it was his responsibility to raise and protect him since he failed to protect his parents, and they could not be there to do so. His interest isn't weird, it would be perfectly natural for anyone to do so in the same position.

 

[Lightknight]

The primary difference between the two relationships, resulting in the different "look" of the relationships to the outside observer, is not sexual. It is the depth of the relationship. Now, relationships with a sexual component more often become deep, and relationships that are deep often become sexual. This is why you associate the signs of a deep of relationships with physical relationships. But it is not a safe assumption to make.

Exactly, and yet works like this expect us to read between the lines and make that exact assumption just because there is a deeper relationship than just some dude-bro beer pong cooperation going on.

 

[EternallyBored]

The primary difference between the two relationships, resulting in the different "look" of the relationships to the outside observer, is not sexual. It is the depth of the relationship. Now, relationships with a sexual component more often become deep, and relationships that are deep often become sexual. This is why you associate the signs of a deep of relationships with physical relationships. But it is not a safe assumption to make.

Exactly, and yet works like this expect us to read between the lines and make that exact assumption just because there is a deeper relationship than just some dude-bro beer pong cooperation going on.

I don't think the books are expecting you to do anything, it is simply using a different interpretation for a relationship between two characters with a vague connection than the one you assumed. The events between Dumbledore and Grindlewald are vague enough that you can read either interpretation, the author had one interpretation in mind while writing it, but I can't think of anywhere in the books where you are expected to come to the same conclusion as the author. Just like the people who swear up and down that two characters must be in love and it turns out the author had no intention of anything being hinted at, you weren't necessarily expected to read their interaction as merely friendship, you just had a different interpretation. Unless the work explicitly lays out a relationship as either love or just friendship, the work itself is not expecting anything.

Rowling didn't treat this like the Ron/Hermione announcements where she said she was implying the relationship in previous books and it was the reader's fault for missing the implications, when she announced it, it was that was the trait she had in mind when writing him, and I haven't seen anything since announcing that she was expecting people to think he was gay just through reading the books. She makes no mention of needing to read between the lines because whether Dumbledore's relationship with Grindlewald was romantic love or love between friends does not change the plot in any way.

It was a trait she had in mind while writing him, but not a trait that was needed for the story. From what little I know of writing, this is not an uncommon practice amongst professional fiction writers, to assign characters traits in the author's head that are not mentioned in the story but are used to help inform their behavior and actions.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Oh boy, its THIS discussion again.

Both aren't wrong in their positions. I read and will continue to read Dumbledore as a straight character because there was nothing in the text that clued me into it before I heard, years after the last book was published, that the character was considered by Rowling as homosexual.

However.

Re-reading it with that put into the mix, I could see the character keeping that mystery to himself. I just prefer my original interpretation of Dumbledore. Does that make me homophobic? I hope not; I just consider him played straight in the way I read the words on the pages. This doesn't come from me disliking the notion of him being homosexual, just that its not the ingrained image of the man I created while reading the series as they were released.

Rowling is free to comment on the sexuality of a character she created as much as she wants. Fans will interpret the work as they will. While my view of the man is now non-canon, if I enjoy imagining the character in the way I originally read him as years ago I don't see how anyone needs to police my attitude on it.

I'm not going to war on this but others always will be prepared to try and change my mind anyway.

[sup][sup]I enjoyed Dumbledore being flamboyantly gay in ERB so whatever. It's not a big deal to me.[/sup][/sup]

 

[Therumancer]

Oh boy, its THIS discussion again.

Both aren't wrong in their positions. I read and will continue to read Dumbledore as a straight character because there was nothing in the text that clued me into it before I heard, years after the last book was published, that the character was considered by Rowling as homosexual.

However.

Re-reading it with that put into the mix, I could see the character keeping that mystery to himself. I just prefer my original interpretation of Dumbledore. Does that make me homophobic? I hope not; I just consider him played straight in the way I read the words on the pages. This doesn't come from me disliking the notion of him being homosexual, just that its not the ingrained image of the man I created while reading the series as they were released.

Rowling is free to comment on the sexuality of a character she created as much as she wants. Fans will interpret the work as they will. While my view of the man is now non-canon, if I enjoy imagining the character in the way I originally read him as years ago I don't see how anyone needs to police my attitude on it.

I'm not going to war on this but others always will be prepared to try and change my mind anyway.

[sup][sup]I enjoyed Dumbledore being flamboyantly gay in ERB so whatever. It's not a big deal to me.[/sup][/sup]

People sidestepped the post I made on the subject since that should have ended this right there. Dumbledore was *NOT* gay until after the books were finished when JK Rowling made the statement. In fact JK Rowling started out originally stating that NONE of her characters were gay, multiple times, in response to various attacks she was enduring claiming that Harry Potter was "evil" and out to seduce children into "homosexuality and witchcraft". Given that the characters are wizards and witches some of her biggest critics when she was getting big were Christians and indeed she went out of her way at one point to say all of her characters were Christians, hence the celebration of Christmas being a big deal, and a bit about Christmas every year of the book.

Later she was challenged again by early SJWs and she initially said "If any of my characters were to be gay, it would probably be Dumbledore". Later after more pressure she said Dumbledore was gay, which of course lead to lots of SJW celebration and JK Rowling riding it through for the popularity, especially seeing as the Christians had chilled out and she even was able to use a Cathedral as Hogwarts for the movies.

It's all there if you want to do the research and read far enough back, a lot of this was all news at the time.

The point here is that Dumbledore was not initially gay, so there is no real way to "read him as gay" since he was never intended to be. His relationship with Grindlewald was not a sexual one as it was intended originally. Anyone looking for hints or implications are going to be disappointed or are reading too far into things that just aren't there.

Understand, JK Rowling's success was unexpected and she was writing for her kids initially as they grew up. She wasn't out to make a political statement, and didn't have a lot of this planned out. She likely wasn't sitting there going "well you know, I'm going to have this gay, crazy old man, to be a mentor to the main character so my kinds will learn tolerance, yet despite this intention I'll never actually say he's gay, despite all the other romances and such going on as the characters grow up and go through puberty".

That said JK Rowling *DID* later decide her character was gay, and as the creator she can declare something like that canon since nothing about Dumbledore actually says he wasn't. But it's not something actually from the story, or that was intended, it was a gesture after the fact.

 

[DementedSheep]

Oh boy, its THIS discussion again.

Both aren't wrong in their positions. I read and will continue to read Dumbledore as a straight character because there was nothing in the text that clued me into it before I heard, years after the last book was published, that the character was considered by Rowling as homosexual.

However.

Re-reading it with that put into the mix, I could see the character keeping that mystery to himself. I just prefer my original interpretation of Dumbledore. Does that make me homophobic? I hope not; I just consider him played straight in the way I read the words on the pages. This doesn't come from me disliking the notion of him being homosexual, just that its not the ingrained image of the man I created while reading the series as they were released.

Rowling is free to comment on the sexuality of a character she created as much as she wants. Fans will interpret the work as they will. While my view of the man is now non-canon, if I enjoy imagining the character in the way I originally read him as years ago I don't see how anyone needs to police my attitude on it.

I'm not going to war on this but others always will be prepared to try and change my mind anyway.

[sup][sup]I enjoyed Dumbledore being flamboyantly gay in ERB so whatever. It's not a big deal to me.[/sup][/sup]

Not trying to accuse you of being homophobic but I don't get why you or anyone would assign him as straight in the first place as it has no reverence to anything he dose. Why is him being straight important to how you imagine him? Dumbldore's sexuality to me was always an unimportant blank. If Rowling says he's gay (even if that was decided after the books were finished), well ok, that something I didn't know about the character and it's not a blank anymore.

I don't understand why but I don't really have a problem with people interpreting him as straight for the books so long as get that it's not canon and don't expect the author justify him being gay because it doesn't match an image they built up in their head from assumptions and fan fic.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

Not trying to throw around accusations here, but am I the only one who thinks that if she had confirmed him to be straight (despite no evidence in the books either) then we wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone asking why it wasn't explicitly spelled out in the books? After all, it's not like this was the first time she ever clarified something that wasn't mentioned in the books. With the way that she seems to contrive new plot devices as she goes, and the way she seems to value a whimsical style over logical world building, she would surely have answered an innumerable amount of questions asking why character X didn't solve problem Y using method Z. In fact, these types of clarifications from authors/directors/developers are not uncommon, and yet, they only ever seem to become controversial when the content of the clarification is itself, controversial.
One would almost be led to believe this controversy has little to do with whether or not it was in the book, and everything to do with him being gay (regardless of how many people begin their posts with "I'm not homophobic, but ...").

 

[Vivi22]

I doubt I need to add that the fan intended to use the word "see" in a figurative sense, and Ms Rowling replied -rather tongue-in-cheek- taking it in the literal sense.

She didn't take it in the literal sense. Her statement works perfectly well in the same figurative sense the fan used.

And her answer wasn't insensitive and thoughtless. It is literally the only appropriate answer to the question given her feelings about her own work.

 

[elvor0]

That wasn't thoughtless or inappropriate, she just answered it in a pretty straight forward way.

When people complain about Dumbledore being gay, and how they don't see it, it makes me wonder if they even read the last book. I mean when he was 17 he wrote secret letters to another boy about how they'll be together. After his sister was killed the other boy ran off and became wizard Hitler, and Dumbledore wouldn't go and face him for some suspicious reason (coughlovecough) until 6 years later when he became to bad to ignore. Then, despite wielding an unbeatable wand and being evenly matched to Dumbledore, he lost. Kinda like the book was implying he didn't want to kill Dumbledore. Then he never even gave up Dumbledore's secrets despite a lifetime in prison, the fact that Dumbledore was already dead, and that he was staring death in the face. Kinda like the book was implying something about the way they felt for each other (coughlovecough).

You can interpret a character in any way you want, but Word of God and evidence in the books says Dumbledore's gay.

Waaait a minute, I never read the last three books, but that /was/ cut from the film wasn't it?

Either way, in regards to the fan; Dumbledores sexuality is never so much as given a sub atmoic size of mention in ay of the preceding books or films, so how you could decide either way beyond assuming the default of him being hetro is anyones guess. If it's that black and white in the last book about Dumbledore, that assumption ends up being wrong, because there was no evidence prior to that to suggest your assumption was correct.

1) People absolutely have a right to interpret works of art as they see fit

They do, but that doesn't mean they're right. If the /creator/ of the works says that something IS, that is what it is, regarldess of how strongly the interpretor feels it's something else.

You could interpret many, many many meanings from The Beatles "I am the Walrus", but they'd all be wrong becuse Lennon specifically wrote it as gibberish with perhaps the only meaning being "these words sound strange and mysterious" to defy people who read into things too much, which is /exactly/ what you have done with that huuuuge wall of text which I'm peterbed to say I read, because it was all just overaught interpretation that missed the point of what you were presenting in the first place.

More to the point, why does him being gay /need/ to be yelled from the pages? If she wanted it to be more realistic, unless they're involved in an act with the relevant sex or a walking stereotype you can't spot straight, gay or bisexual people just by looking at them either. Dumbledores sexuality was not relevant to the story or plot, so it never came up.

 

[Flames66]

I'll never understand the phenomenon of people trying to outsmart the author. Anyone can come up with a theory on something, but only the 'professor' has the answer sheet. If I were to theorize that Dumbledore was actually wearing a fake beard the whole time, it would be a fun theory, but it would be wrong.

I already proved that cannot be the case in the OP. Also, you hold that opinion against all of postmodern theory for the last 70 years or so. Have fun with it.

No you didn't. You made that claim in the OP. Other people are now disputing it. That is how a discussion works.

OT: I didn't see Dumbledore as gay either because it is never directly mentioned in the books. I also didn't see him as straight (Though I must admit, my mind did lean that way) because it is not relevant to the story. As to why someone would ask the author later? because it's interesting to find out a little bit more about characters you enjoy. There is no harm in it, nor is there harm assuming he was not gay because it was not mentioned. The only harm here is saying something like "but he can't be gay, he doesn't act like this" because that falsely assumes all gay people act a certain way.

 

[Angelowl]

Not trying to throw around accusations here, but am I the only one who thinks that if she had confirmed him to be straight (despite no evidence in the books either) then we wouldn't hear a peep out of anyone asking why it wasn't explicitly spelled out in the books? After all, it's not like this was the first time she ever clarified something that wasn't mentioned in the books. With the way that she seems to contrive new plot devices as she goes, and the way she seems to value a whimsical style over logical world building, she would surely have answered an innumerable amount of questions asking why character X didn't solve problem Y using method Z. In fact, these types of clarifications from authors/directors/developers are not uncommon, and yet, they only ever seem to become controversial when the content of the clarification is itself, controversial.
One would almost be led to believe this controversy has little to do with whether or not it was in the book, and everything to do with him being gay (regardless of how many people begin their posts with "I'm not homophobic, but ...").

I think you highlighted the crux of the issue quite well there. Imagining that he was announced as straight and the fans being in uproar... Nah, not realistic. It just wouldn't happen. Since heterosexism, straight people are seen as normal everyone else is seen as abnormal and odd.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'll never understand the phenomenon of people trying to outsmart the author. Anyone can come up with a theory on something, but only the 'professor' has the answer sheet. If I were to theorize that Dumbledore was actually wearing a fake beard the whole time, it would be a fun theory, but it would be wrong.

You are giving authors WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much credit.

And the comparison is not correct honestly.

In other words... uhm, fan fiction can, has, and will at times be more compelling then what the author has created. No matter what George RR Martin may believe in.

I'm not saying it couldn't be compelling. The Nobody Dies version of Evangelion is brilliant. HOWEVER, it's not the actual author's tale. Regardless of quality, Word of God trumps all in terms of meaning. It's not like how George Lucas declared all Star Wars books canon here. A fanfiction is an alternate universe based upon the original text. It doesn't change the actual story.

*Shrugs*

Sorry, that's just how it is.