Dumbledore Is Gay...

blueheaven · Post by **blueheaven** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:30 am

Actually, I work with several gay teachers. I must say that they are very discrete. Not because of any type of shame or worry that parents could not handle the situation, but because sexuality has no place in school discussion. I think THAT is what Rowling was trying to accomplish. I don't think it was an afterthought. If you listened to what she said, she stated that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay when she wrote the character. I think the fact that he was so guarded about his past is proof enough to me.

No matter how popular or talented you are, some doors are still not open. For example, look how many openly gay male lead actors there are in the world? Tom Cruise, at the height of his popularity, could not reveal his sexuality. Same goes with Kevin Spacey or John Travolta. They knew that A) The studios would not allow it, and B) The public would not support it. Montgomery Clift. Langston Hughes. They created a body of work respected by all. Later, they were outed, creating a good dialogue among their fans. Anyway, food for thought.

irmgaard · Post by **irmgaard** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:28 am

blueheaven wrote: she stated that she always thought of Dumbledore as gay when she wrote the character.

I’m sure she did.

I work in an art studio/gallery. Virtually all the men I work with are gay. I haven’t talked about this, but I can hazard a guess that their reaction would be much the same as mine:

“You mean, there are some people who thought Dumbledore wasn’t gay?

Come on, he’s Headmaster at a British Public School!”

As I said, it’s a cliché.

Now, regarding real Gay Rights issues in the UK, an important anniversary has just been passed. Fifty years since the submission of the Wolfenden Report, in which the governmental committee, headed by *cough* British public school headmaster *cough* Sir John Wolfenden recommended the decriminalization of homosexual acts between consenting adults.
http://gaycitynews.com/site/news.cfm?ne ... 9346&rfi=6

sugarcels · Post by **sugarcels** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:45 am

I'm not totally surprised. The last book left me feeling kinda iffy about him

But I'm cool with it, because my dad is actually gay.

Not Sir Phobos · Post by **Not Sir Phobos** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:20 pm

blueheaven wrote: Tom Cruise, at the height of his popularity, could not reveal his sexuality.

Tom Cruise is gay?

Personally I really don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I think she said it to sell more books, plain and simple.

naturalgrace · Post by **naturalgrace** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:59 pm

Not Sir Phobos wrote: Tom Cruise is gay?

He says he isn't, though there have been rumours for years.

Anyway, Scientology considers homosexuality a mental defect that can be cured. Even if he were gay, he probably considers himself "recovered" or in the process of recovery (given that he's now married another woman). Same with John Travolta, actually.

ZombieBunny · Post by **ZombieBunny** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:10 pm

naturalgrace wrote:
Not Sir Phobos wrote: Tom Cruise is gay?
He says he isn't, though there have been rumours for years.

Anyway, Scientology considers homosexuality a mental defect that can be cured. Even if he were gay, he probably considers himself "recovered" or in the process of recovery (given that he's now married another woman). Same with John Travolta, actually.

Really makes you think...

sailorsv13 · Post by **sailorsv13** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:05 pm

I am inclined to agree with blueheaven.

Even if Rowling did add this as an afterthought for publicity, what is wrong with that? Is she cheapening the gay community or is she doing what every other human being must do to make it big in the capitalized world....how many of you who believe this is wrong also eat fast food, use name-brand products in your house (Febreeze anyone?), your clothes, the books you choose to read and the movies you watch, the stores you shop in (and pretty much everyone is guilty of buying from a store running on exported labor. hint: made in china). These media ploys surround and mold the lives of most Americans and effect just about everyone. So when you think that Rowling trying to bring attention to her book by making Dumbledore gay is bad, you must realize that she is doing the same thing as the company that got you to wear the clothes you have on right now (unless you made them yourself, props!). Then you must look at what the positive effects of her announcement might be....bringing more attention to homosexuality where society can slowly change and develop tolerance. McDonald's certainly hasn't done anything good like this through the publicity of their products that I am aware of...nor has Target or Wal-Mart (to be honest most companies can't afford to make political statements the way an author can). So if you think media ploys cheapen the subject (such as with homosexuality) then I hope you also avoid "cheapened" clothes and food that are mass-marketed to you.

Regardless of whether she made the statement for personal gain, I still see a positive aspect to Dumbledore becoming gay all of a sudden. If you have read the book you can look back and believe that Dumbledore was gay...so I don't necessarily think announcing it afterwards makes her a bad writer. And regardless of whether homosexual gay schoomasters are common in Britain she knows what is going on in US politics and therefore knows that the announcement will be controversial. While I agree that this will bring her books a lot of attention, there are many in the US who will turn away from her books now. So I think there will be positive and negative reactions. At least the woman is stirring the pot a bit, even if I don't believe in manipulating masses of people into buying products but hey I don't eat fast food! Of all of the media ploys to fall for I would choose one with positive side effects first.

~ Bri ~

Maiko · Post by **Maiko** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:55 am

sailorsv13 wrote:or is she doing what every other human being must do to make it big in the capitalized world....how many of you who believe this is wrong also eat fast food, use name-brand products in your house (Febreeze anyone?), your clothes, the books you choose to read and the movies you watch, the stores you shop in (and pretty much everyone is guilty of buying from a store running on exported labor.

So basicly, if JcPenny's and Taco Bell exploits people to push their wares, it's okay for everyone to do it? Because that's how you survive in this world?

And just because I might grab a burger from Jack in the Box from time to time hardly makes me a hypocrite. I think comparing a writer creating a gay character to sweatshops exploiting children and the Chinese is a big leap.

When I used the term "cheapen", it was simply because I was of the opinion that she didn't make Dumbledore gay to shed positive light and bring attention to the gay community so much as I believed it to be her wanting to bring attention to herself- kind of using the gay community as a crutch. That's what this initial debate came down to- whether one thought it was for a message of tolerance for homosexuality, or to sell more books. That's all. Either opinion is legitimate and BlueHeaven and the rest all have good points. So I don't see why you have to compare it with real crimes against humanity, such as physical exploitation in sweatshops.

moonrabitt · Post by **moonrabitt** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:42 am

blueheaven wrote:
And to answer the above question, did she really HAVE to hint at it? What did you want her to do, give him a lisp? Wear a rainbow sticker on his broom? Kiss Snape? Most gay men that I know keep their private life just that, private. They don't go leaving breadcrumbs for the breeders to follow.

I have not read the book...So I'm asking....I mean people before that thought he might be gay..so where did they get that Idea from????
Besides watching the movies I don't know the background of the guy...
Some saw it coming....I had no clue...

Not that I'm saying that he should have kissed the man..just saying if it was part of the book, or if it just came out of the blue.

buttrflym · Post by **buttrflym** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:50 am

Kiss a man? People read way too much into friendship these days. Gosh, old books and writings had many guy friends hug and take to one another WITHOUT BEING GAY. But today, if I guy even touches another guy, he is considered gay. Besides, a lot of people now-a-days think that many people are gay, or they hope they are gay. People read way too much into this.

She probably didn't say anything until now cause of all the bad messages she was getting from other groups just about the magic. She was a coward. Don't say she wouldn't be published cause you know she would have. Besides, if an author truly feels for idea, he/she should write it. Look at the author for The Picture of Dorian Gray (very famous by the way), he wrote about his main character being gay and the public was outraged, YET he still DID IT. I think he even went to jail but not sure.

But another problem I have, is why did she wait so long to say anything. There were many interviews and public talks where she talked about things not in the books like what Hermoine did for a living and other details. WHY NOW?

Anyways, just my two cents.

sailorsv13 · Post by **sailorsv13** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:10 am

Maiko wrote:

So basicly, if JcPenny's and Taco Bell exploits people to push their wares, it's okay for everyone to do it? Because that's how you survive in this world?

Well it must be ok for you since you enjoy and see nothing wrong with eating Jack in the Box (a company that clearly exploits people)....I pointed out that Rowling isn't exploiting gays with media ploys as much as media ploys can exploit (the ploy of Jack in the Box is clearly more difficult to resist than Harry Potter). And since media ploys such as Jack in the Box work on you, it seems you decide to choose your battles against media ploys....therefore making your argument hypocrytical yes. And my argument follows the initial debate: relating examples that support both arguments but concluding that one is correct: Rowling may very well be using cheap media ploys to gain attention for her book: but compared to other media ploys in the world it is fairly harmless and is (there is a post on Anime Beta about this that we are writing in now) bringing attention to tolerance whether or not you feel that her announcement is directly calling for tolerance. Perhaps it cheapens gays the way Jack in the Box sells cheap food but I believe that to be an extreme take on her decision to make Dumbledore gay. For some reason I get the feeling that she wasn't trying to cheapen gays, and certainly would be offended if you told her that is what she was doing. Even though I see your ideas and feelings behind it, you are not taking into consideration how much you blow her media ploy out of proportion to be evil and wrong, therefore cheapening gays. It is very unlikely that she needed to use gay rights as a "crutch" her books have already sold very well and from what I understand she is married to a doctor. It is you who are making an extreme argument so I thought I would show you what you did.

Not saying she is a hero or champion of gay rights, just saying this is fuel for positive discussion about homosexuality and its role in society. And I don't think we can decide why she chose to make the announcement so late without asking her. However on this post we have put forth that she is using it as a media ploy (likely), and that she was a poor writer, and I believe someone mentioned something close to the fact that it simply adds a dramatic effect to the final book (which I suppose would make her a good writer), some said she was afraid of the ramifications, others said no her publishers probably wouldn't let him be openly gay in the book, others argue back that gays aren't generally open anyway (so maybe she had something there). Aren't there all sorts of underlying things authors add to their books (or movies) to get their books extra attention after the ferver dies down? Star Wars for example? (I haven't heard anyone accuse George Lucas of being selfish although I do not scourge the internet for dissenting opinions of popular culture so there very well could be those with this opinion ^.^) Of course the author cannot add them bluntly into the work because the suprise would be given away and thus they would lose the attention. And regardless of political motivation most authors who make this much money from their books are writing the books to make money so it shouldn't come as a suprise that they would try to gain attention. The author most likely had multiple reasons for giving you this news later rathern than in the book and could have very well had someone telling her that it would be great for publicity, where her support of gay rights could be heard as a bonus (that is exactly what it sounded like from the article which we are basing our opinions on). However, as she is from Britain where it has been pointed out there are many gay school headmasters, she could have thought that it was completely obvious to her readers that he was gay and that she announced it when she realized it is not obvious to those who aren't from Britain. It would be interesting to hear interviews of some English to see whether they could already tell by reading the book that he was gay. In any event perhaps someone will find an article to further this topic and shed more light on our very good guesses.

~ Bri ~

Maiko · Post by **Maiko** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:40 pm

sailorsv13 wrote: Even though I see your ideas and feelings behind it, you are not taking into consideration how much you blow her media ploy out of proportion to be evil and wrong, therefore cheapening gays.

Just like you are blowing eating fast food out of proportion?

NOWHERE did I say in my post that JK Rowling was evil. You are reading way too far into this. The only person sitting back and calling people evil is you and your outrageous daily consumer claims.

My first post was simply a matter of opinion, and I am offended by your post that just because I buy clothes to wear on my back or eat any kind of food that doesn't grow on a bush, I am an insensitive jerk willfully exploiting people.

duotrouble · Post by **duotrouble** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:21 pm

NSP said it best for me.

Not Sir Phobos wrote:Personally I really don't care if Dumbledore is gay. I think she said it to sell more books, plain and simple.

It was a media ploy and nothing else. Whether or not Dumbledore is gay, whether or not she thought about him a gay as she wrote about him and whether or not it's cliche, the bottom line is she said it to get publicity. Look at how many people here are talking about it. There are even people in this thread who haven't read the books. Maybe they're thinking about it now to "look for clues".

It wasn't revelant to the plot so who really cares. English professors say it best when they say "the writer is dead to you." It doesn't matter what the writer was trying to get across when they were writing whatever. All that matters is what you get out of the book.

Cloud · Post by **Cloud** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:21 pm

I like the English language.

blueheaven · Post by **blueheaven** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:51 pm

duotrouble wrote:It doesn't matter what the writer was trying to get across when they were writing whatever. All that matters is what you get out of the book.

Totally wrong, in my opinion.

It is of paramount importance to examine why a writer writes. It gives the reader a deeper understanding of the book itself. If Rowling simply blurted this out at a press conference, then I would make the argument that this was a ploy to sell more books. But, she said it in answer to a fan question geared specifically toward the character's sex life. The fact that she said it at a non-televised even also goes toward proving this point. I love how folks on this board are saying "it's the words that matter in a novel, not the intent behind them." Yet, you are questioning Rowling's intent rather than simply listen to the words themselves. Sorry, but the fact that Walt Whitman was gay, gives me a deeper understanding of his work when I read through it.