J.K. Rowling and the Dumbledore Sexual Identity Mystery

[IamLEAM1983]

But... she's not wrong. Gay people are people just like everyone else. I don't think her response was thoughtless, I thought it was perfect. If anything, the fan's question seemed a bit thoughtless, if not tactless. What was she meant to say: "Oh so sorry that your view isn't what I had in mind. Let me change my characters around to suit your purposes"? Fair enough to the fan, you can see a character in whatever light you want to, hell, some people see Dumbledore as a manipulative bastard. Her work won't be tarnished. And this woman has had her choices in her character's sexuality questioned over and over, in positive ways and negative. I'm not saying the fan was dumb but how tactless can a person be? JK has never hid that Dumbledore is gay. The question has been rehashed over and over that if you want to know the reasons why he is gay then you can just google it

What I want to know is what the fan thinks gay people look like.

Edit: JK has not actually treated her fans poorly at all, and she's always answered their questions over twitter, ranging from Dumbledore's sexuality to people of different religion. She's never outright insulted a fan. I don't see what the problem is here. A fan asked a question and they got a very simple, straightforward and true honest answer.

As ever, first reply is best reply.

The fan's question was actually fairly tactless. Imagine my walking up to Stephen King, for instance, and claiming that in my capacity as a fan, I just don't like the idea of Roland Deschain using guns, because guns kill people. He'd say that's my opinion, but also that I have no control over what he does with his characters. If anything, this example shows how microblogging platforms tend to foster a strange sense of closeness between an author and his or her fans. Some fans think they're close enough to their favorite writer that he or she might actually give a damn if they, in their quality as completely anonymous people, suddenly voice a contradictory opinion. That's, obviously, not the case at all.

If anything, I wonder how Dumbledore seems objectively hetero to this particular fan. Is it the fatherly attitude he has with Harry, the long beard and the general wizardlike bearing? None of these ever struck me as being defacto marks of a straight guy. A lot of gays just ooze class and personal experience, just as plenty of straight folk have the kind of moxie I've seen stereotypically associated to gays.

 

[elvor0]

So she created the character in the first place, but if people decide it enough, what she created stops being what she created and becomes something else because people don't like a certain aspect of the character?

"Becomes something else"? You're exaggerating, I didn't suddenly decide that Dumbledore was actually female, or actually a wizard-shaped potato. His sexuality was never stated in the BOOKS, therefore I choose to believe he was straight.

That's ludicrious, it seems mad that despite the fact that she created the whole world, the laws within and the characters within said world, you're arguing that she doesn't have creative control over everything she created?

She has creative control over what she writes. Not creative control over how that work is interpreted.

You're right, she doesnt have direct control over how people interpret her work, but if she makes a unambiguous
statement about what she intended, then there is no room for interpretation because the statement is unambiguous. They can /think/ whatever they like, that doesn't mean they're correct. Example: Artist paints a goat into a painting. Some pretentious beret says it represents the devil. Artist tells him he just painted it there because it is pleasing. Why are the artist and the beret correct, despite the artist flat out telling him that it doesn't represent what the beret thinks it does? I'm not arguing that people /can't/ interpret whatever they want from something, just that not everyone can be right and sometimes everyone is wrong, because only the writer knows the whole truth. Inperpretation about the author is very different to interpretation of the work.

I don't even think she's a particuarly good writer, but your statement of "She should of done what every good writer does and left it to the readers decide" obviously translates to "So I can make everyone hetrosexual and live in a bubble."

What I want out of my fiction/fantasy entertainment is in my own bubble. Problem?

Letting the readers decide also means that we can never mention characters sexualities again, so that "the readers can decide". I mean, can't explicitly state this dude is straight, some gay people might get upset(Ah fuck it, that's never gonna happen).

She was free to mention characters' sexualities in her BOOKS - she already did with most characters who got were already into straight relationships, or ended up that way. It's not hard. I would not have been "upset", it's just that Dumbledore would no longer have been my favourite character. That's all.

But she chose to leave it ambiguous, and when a writer does that it's clear they want to leave it to readers to discuss of fantasize over.

My problem is that sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make something cease to have happened. And that making things abigious so the reader can decide too much seriously waters down the vision the writer is trying to paint. And god knows JKs writing doesn't need more water or it's going to return to the sea. I'm pretty peeved about the existance of midichlorians in the Star Wars prequel despite never being mentioned in the proper films. Do I like it? Fuck no, but I still accept that they exist.

You say "she should let the readers decide", but then you say she should explicitly state it. What am I to make of that?

Maybe it's not ambiguous and she justed wanted it to be more realistic and thus subtle? Sexuality is quite subtle in the real world, if you're not talking about it and unless you're pretty good you're not going to pick up on their sexuality if they never mention anything to do with it or events that would tip you off never occur.

I mean the whole thing with Grindlewald seems pretty clear cut to me.

Not really, it was far from clear cut because the thought of Dumbledore being gay didn't even remotely occur to a MILLIONS of people of all ages, die-hard fans included.

Secret letters, hanging around all the time, refusing to fight each other, Dumbledore going along with Grindlewald ideas despite disagreeig with him, Grindlewald not killing Dumbledore when he had the chance? It was the 1920s, it's not like they could've gotten up to much, they'd've been flogged. But to me, they most certainly sounded like classic childhood sweethearts, with Dumbledore playing the part of the girl. They've got pretty big fan bases, so it makes sense that a large number (though perhaps not percentages. Admittedly this may require investigation on both our parts, as any numbers either of us produce are likely to be hyperbole) of people "missed". Do we have any decent estimates for this?

 

[freaper]

I'm gonna have to agree with the first comment I saw on that website:

JGHunter 4 days ago
WHY IS THIS EVEN AN ARTICLE ON A NEWS OUTLET?

Also, fascist? Seriously? I hope no one is fooled by your misguided use of linguistic theories.

 

[wildstyle96]

I read the books at least 3 times from what I remember, yet I can't ever remember receiving a hint at Dumbledores sexuality from the book itself. Other posters seem to know about all of these hints, but this is a young adults book at the end of the day; most young readers would never have picked up on it.

If you have to explain a characters trait because it wasn't obvious enough, is that down to bad writing on your part or bad readers; from what I understand only the hardcore fans actually picked up on the hints.

In my opinion it's a legitimate question, if badly phrased. Most people never got the hint from the book, perhaps just assuming he was gay.

 

[happyninja42]

I read the books at least 3 times from what I remember, yet I can't ever remember receiving a hint at Dumbledores sexuality from the book itself. Other posters seem to know about all of these hints, but this is a young adults book at the end of the day; most young readers would never have picked up on it.

If you have to explain a characters trait because it wasn't obvious enough, is that down to bad writing on your part or bad readers; from what I understand only the hardcore fans actually picked up on the hints.

In my opinion it's a legitimate question, if badly phrased. Most people never got the hint from the book, perhaps just assuming he was gay.

I only read the books after learning that Dumbledore was gay, so I can't really comment on if the writing was so subtle as to be missed or not. But I can say, that having foreknowledge about his sexuality, when they start discussing his early life in book....5? 6? Whichever one it is, I did feel like there was some significant clues peppered in their. I noticed it, and could see it from the viewpoint of a "proper, stuffy" British interpretation. The information was usually in the forms of articles in the paper that Harry was reading (if I recall correctly), and the comments about Dumbledore and his "long time friend" seemed very much in the classic "Brit's don't like to discuss sexuality" theme you see so often in pop culture. The almost apoplexic aversion to discussing or mentioning it, so it was only alluded to, but again, since I was aware of it, I did spot it.

All that being said though, JK has totally got the right to say declaratively "He's gay." Now, fans can of course say "he doesn't seem gay to me." or "I don't see him as being gay." But they would be wrong. They can still operate under the false assumption that the character is straight if it makes them feel better or whatever, but they would still be wrong, since Word of God says otherwise.

 

[Ishal]

A few problems:
"It's a story based on the story, not The Story."

Every. Single. Thing. Ever. Is like that.
Sometimes, the similarities are great. STALKER/Stalker/Roadside Picnic/Klondike is an example. But not the only one.


"that explains everything about everything and give us a conclusion to all the happenings in Paradigm City,"

A good ending is not necessarily one that explains everything ... Not at all.

"it's not the real ending no matter how good it is."

Nothing we are talking about is technically real. It does not matter. It is an IP, bussiness at its worst and art at its best. But not a real thing.

"It's about who started the journey in the first place, who paved the way to lead to it."

Definitely not ANY one person in the last 5-6 thousand years.

Aren't you just nitpicking on the dubious claim that nothing is original anymore? It doesn't actually change anything that's been said.

He is nitpicking, and it's leading him nowhere.

Death of the Author is something that I do not support. It's actually something that I cannot stand.

Fan works vary wildly in quality, as most people with any experience will know. What came first is indeed the word of God. It's for that reason that I don't enjoy comics or comic continuity. There is no purity of vision. If an author wants to get on a soap box and turn a character completely 180 degrees to support a message or make a statement, then they can do it. All other canon and lore be damned.

And what people don't understand who claim that fan fiction = primary source, is that it's an all or nothing statement. Meaning, ALL fanfiction, not just the ones they cherry pick to be good. The cringiest of the cringey count, too. It's not equal, nor will it ever be. It's a nice thought exercise, but it doesn't move beyond that.

 

[Azure23]

Geez are people gonna start saying that Korrasami isn't canon now or something? I mean damn, I've seen some bend-over-backwards justifications in my day, but this thread is just killing it.

I've also seen a bunch or arguments that "the sjw' got her to change it so it's not valid." Fucking please. Like any of us actually know the reason, maybe he was always meant to be gay but she just paid a little bit of lip service to stuffy assholes who couldn't deal with it? Hell I used to lie to the annoying evangelists on campus just so they wouldn't come up and proselytize while I was trying to enjoy a book on a nice day, "yep- totally a Christian, totally a racist asshole, totally a whatever, your work here is done. Off you go now!" My point is we don't know what her original intentions for the character were and even if we did, so fucking what? Characters change over the course of a long series like that, authors decide to go in new directions. Many times characters take on a life of their own and evolve in ways the author didn't expect but are compelled to write because that's what feels natural. I'll go back to the Korrasami example (because it's my favorite), they didn't plan it from the beginning, but somewhere during season 3 the writers decided to take the characters in that direction. Does that make it less valid? There was never anything overt, hell I've even seen people bend over backwards about how the ending was just totally not romantic, guyz. Likewise there's never anything overt about Dumbledore and Grindelwald's interactions, but anyone looking at it through a non-hetero normative lens could easily see the implications. In both cases you have a writer confirming it post series. What's the big deal? Why do people care? There's literally tons of things we don't know about major characters, last time I checked we don't even know that Harry is white, just that he has green eyes and black hair and he's tall. Why is this particular piece of information such a sticking point for so many people?

 

[happyninja42]

Why is this particular piece of information such a sticking point for so many people?

Because people flip their shit about the subject of sexual orientation, on both sides of the discussion.

 

[tzimize]

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.

Oh lawd. I dont think I'm ever going to get the thought about the fake beard out of my brain. Thanks :|

OT: Dont see the issue, even if the answer she made could be interpreted as a tiny bit flippant it would only be interpreted that way by people with an innate desire to be offended. I tend to write those people off the instant I identify them. Bugger them. Millennium hand and shrimp.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm so disappointed in writers every time I see them bickering on Twitter...

 

[Silvanus]

If you have to explain a characters trait because it wasn't obvious enough, is that down to bad writing on your part or bad readers; from what I understand only the hardcore fans actually picked up on the hints.

Not necessarily either. What people take from art is highly personal; character traits and story elements may be there to be picked up on by some, but may be unimportant to others.

 

[Silvanus]

Fan works vary wildly in quality, as most people with any experience will know. What came first is indeed the word of God. It's for that reason that I don't enjoy comics or comic continuity. There is no purity of vision. If an author wants to get on a soap box and turn a character completely 180 degrees to support a message or make a statement, then they can do it. All other canon and lore be damned.

And what people don't understand who claim that fan fiction = primary source, is that it's an all or nothing statement. Meaning, ALL fanfiction, not just the ones they cherry pick to be good. The cringiest of the cringey count, too. It's not equal, nor will it ever be. It's a nice thought exercise, but it doesn't move beyond that.

To some degree, I agree, but here's a question: what of instances in which the primary source itself changes direction wildly, or diverts from what was originally intended, such as Resident Evil? Must fans adopt an all-or-nothing approach then?

EDIT: Oops, two posts. Forgive me!

 

[Ishal]

Fan works vary wildly in quality, as most people with any experience will know. What came first is indeed the word of God. It's for that reason that I don't enjoy comics or comic continuity. There is no purity of vision. If an author wants to get on a soap box and turn a character completely 180 degrees to support a message or make a statement, then they can do it. All other canon and lore be damned.

And what people don't understand who claim that fan fiction = primary source, is that it's an all or nothing statement. Meaning, ALL fanfiction, not just the ones they cherry pick to be good. The cringiest of the cringey count, too. It's not equal, nor will it ever be. It's a nice thought exercise, but it doesn't move beyond that.

To some degree, I agree, but here's a question: what of instances in which the primary source itself changes direction wildly, or diverts from what was originally intended, such as Resident Evil? Must fans adopt an all-or-nothing approach then?

EDIT: Oops, two posts. Forgive me!

For the sake of argument, I'd generally say my position still applies. I define a clear line.

But, the line isn't so clear when there are years between connected works (like games in a series), or seasons in a TV show, or movies. Any of which can suffer from fluctuating budgets, different writers or directors, or any manner of other changes. It can be murky then, I will grant.

But even so, I find it rather tedious to compare primary source to the fan fiction. In many of those instances, there are several teams of people writing things, rendering things, creating physics engines, directing, animating, etc. Basically you have an army of people coming together to create one thing. Whereas some guy writes a new version of an already published work that doesn't have the deus ex machina in the end. Ta da! It's better! Yeah, but it's also wildly different in several ways.