Author Topic: Harry Potter 7 :: WARNING!!! :: SPOILERS INSIDE!!! ::  (Read 35285 times)

Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #75 on: October 23, 2007, 08:34:01 PM
It's not that Dumbledore was gay that I have any problem with, it's the fact that he's gay, falls in love with the wrong boy when he's young, then when it ends badly decides to shut down emotionally and live a life of self-denying celibacy, because teh gheyness made him do bad things! Gee thanks J.K., good role model for the kids there.

See, this kind of thing really confuses me because in my mind, it actually makes Dumbledore that much more of a flawed character. 

For all we know the wizard community is extremely bigoted.  Dumbledore had to hind what he really was. 

You know,  now I'm starting to wonder what McGonigal really does on saturday nights.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #76 on: October 23, 2007, 08:58:45 PM
Before she transformed herself into a cat, or after?


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #77 on: October 23, 2007, 10:39:14 PM
Coming in quite late to the discussion but I guess the whole DIG thing bumped the thread up.

The thing that pissed me off the most about the book was the epilogue. Everyone tied up neatly in heterosexual families? Seriously. She has plenty of time in the rest of the book to give us great heterosexual family role models. And the "if you don't mention it we throw in our cultural standard" idea from palimsest's article holds true here as well--I was hoping Neville was unmarried at least and not-straight at best, since he isn't mentioned on one side of an ampersand, but the same interview that reveals Dumbledore's sexuality reveals that Neville marries Hannah Abbot.

The thing about sexuality in fiction is that you can't get away from it and sometimes there is no right answer. If you make your characters have explicitly non-straight orientations, the story will become just about sexuality for many people even if that wasn't the point; if you leave it out or make them all heterosexual, people complain you're not painting an accurate picture of the world or avoiding the issue; if you leave it out to avoid track A and then tell everyone afterwards to avoid track B, "Dumbledore Is Gay" is the only thing people have to say about your novel anymore and they still gripe at you for not being more explicit in the story.

And orientation-, gender-, and race-blind LIFE doesn't happen. Unless you are in some alternate universe or futuristic setting or dealing with aliens, nobody goes through life without discussing sexuality, gender, and race at least some of the time, especially those of us who are not SWMs. The focus of a story has to be pretty narrow for me to believe that these topics don't come up ever.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2007, 10:41:11 PM by DDog »

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #78 on: October 25, 2007, 11:36:09 AM

The thing about sexuality in fiction is that you can't get away from it ... Unless you are in some alternate universe or futuristic setting or dealing with aliens, nobody goes through life without discussing sexuality, gender, and race at least some of the time...


I think Hogwarts qualifies as "some alternate universe".  ;) 

And while I do NOT disagree with palimpsest's point (I've made that mistake before), I would suggest that the real sin involved in the "sin of omission" is not the artist/author's fault.  If the readers are projecting "white man" onto any character not specifically described otherwise, that's really their own laziness at work.  Yeah, the writer needs to find interesting ways of slipping description and exposition into the tale, but you can only expect so much, and we wouldn't want them to waste all our time with extraneous detail.

As for Dumbledore's "gheyness", I think Rowling told us as much as she needed to:  He's 1) British, 2) single, 3) gentle, and a 4) schoolteacher, 5) who talks about love.  I know a lot of folks who would conclude from that that he was gay.*  Short of some pointless and awkward exposition ("Then Dumbledore, who was clearly quite gay, pulled another memory from his bonce and plopped it into the pensieve") or worse, dialogue ("Help will always be here for you Harry; and I'm a very withdrawn, non-practising homosexual.") I don't know how you could expect her to telegraph her intention without distracting from the rest of the story.

Of course, she could have set up Voldemort's motivation as that of a jilted lover.  How much sharper than a serpent's tooth is the fury of a Slytherin scorned?  And Neville could have ended up with Dean Thomas, but then we wouldn't be set up so thoroughly for a sequel series, now would we?


*And, no, I don't approve of or choose to hang out with these folks -- they've also concluded that I'm gay because I prefer opera to football, and that my wife and four kids are a smoke screen.  I doubt many of them can read, anyway.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Loz

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
    • Blah Flowers
Reply #79 on: October 26, 2007, 05:50:04 AM
I always enjoy it when people go to absurd lengths to try and defend their position. I had another conversation elsewhere where someone seemed to think that asking how Rowling could have worked Dumbledore wearing leather chaps into the story as a signifier of his sexuality.

It is Rowling's responsibility to find a way to work it in to the story (I don't see anything wrong with Dumbledore being a bit more specific during his conversation with Harry in Deathly Hallows for example). After all, if Rowling hadn't been asked this question at this time we might never have known about Dumbledore. After all, we're not all slash writers, it's not our job to assume that all the boys are sleeping together and all the girls are sneaking off to orgies in the Ravenclaw Tower  ;)



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #80 on: October 26, 2007, 05:58:29 PM
Of course, she could have set up Voldemort's motivation as that of a jilted lover.  How much sharper than a serpent's tooth is the fury of a Slytherin scorned?  And Neville could have ended up with Dean Thomas, but then we wouldn't be set up so thoroughly for a sequel series, now would we?

Actually, fanfic is more likely to pair up Seamus with Dean Thomas.

Don't ask me how I know that or I'll be forced to point you to my author page on adultfanfiction.net.

I'm with the people who call the DIG thing a bit of retconning combined with JKR wanting to stay relevant.

Ever since her editors became too scared to edit down her doorstops (leading to bloatedness in books 4, 5, 6, and 7), despite her kindly-mom outward persona, I think it all went to her head.  I really hope that when she starts her next book series, whatever it ends up being, her editors do not fear her.  Maybe they should hire whoever edited the latest Anita Blake novel -- the three before it were bloated and choppy and annoying, but The Harlequin was tighter and sharper, even though it was still long.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #81 on: October 27, 2007, 01:26:41 PM
I always enjoy it when people go to absurd lengths to try and defend their position. I had another conversation elsewhere where someone seemed to think that asking how Rowling could have worked Dumbledore wearing leather chaps into the story as a signifier of his sexuality.

It is Rowling's responsibility to find a way to work it in to the story (I don't see anything wrong with Dumbledore being a bit more specific during his conversation with Harry in Deathly Hallows for example). After all, if Rowling hadn't been asked this question at this time we might never have known about Dumbledore. After all, we're not all slash writers, it's not our job to assume that all the boys are sleeping together and all the girls are sneaking off to orgies in the Ravenclaw Tower  ;)


...and I enjoy going to absurd lengths for a cheap laugh.  What a match!

I guess the point I am reaching for is this: she shouldn't HAVE to work that detail into the story.  Not every detail is crucial, and you would need a compelling reason to tell readers that particular detail.  She had to decide what was important to tell IN THE BOOK, and what wasn't; the fact that she had that in mind is interesting, but not crucial.

Dumbledore's alleged orientation doesn't matter enough to the story to be worth spelling out to the reader.  Nothing in the story requires him to be a particular orientation, and trying to shoehorn that into the narrative would either be an exercise in awkwardness or offensiveness.  No matter how casually she presented it, there would be readers with extreme opinions on the topic who would be distracted from the main point she wanted to make (about Love being the most powerful magic). 

Making a character gay in our society is a huge investment.  It means that you have to develop that idea; if you plant the notion, you're going to provoke your readers to come up with ridiculous and offensive assumptions about what it means to be gay (like the ones I made, and the leather chaps comment).  You have to worry about two prongs of reaction: the anti-gays who will be mad that the character is gay at all, and the pro-gays who won't be satisfied with any perceived mischaracterization of the lifestyle.  Frankly, I'm glad she didn't try to deal with it, because I don't think she would have handled it well under any circumstances.  Maybe a better writer could, but looking at how she handled the scenes of young teenage love, I'm relieved she didn't try to tackle homosexuality.

For me, it comes down to this: I read the books.  I hear this interview where the author says "DIG"... I reconsider the books with that detail thrown in, and ask myself, does it change anything?  No; D is still a good, noble, and flawed character.  Is it sad that more people on our planet can't recognize that and stop worrying so much about whether someone is gay? Yes.

Now, I'm sure I've left holes in my argument... but someone just started crying downstairs, so no time to edit further.  Be merciful!

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #82 on: January 08, 2008, 10:14:04 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #83 on: January 09, 2008, 10:23:28 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot.  A charactor being gay could only distract.  There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #84 on: January 09, 2008, 11:00:28 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot.  A charactor being gay could only distract.  There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

I think the important word here is "appropriate."  Personally, I don't think it has anything to do with appropriateness.  Like Russell said, the deaths mentioned drove the plot.  Dumbledore "coming out" in the story, regardless of how people would've reacted to it, would've felt pretty forced the way the stories are written.  I like what one of the other posters said (TAD, I think) -- when would Dumbledore reveal this bit of information to Harry?  In one of his private lessons?  But as a bit of backstory that was never published, it works very well for me.

(I'm also not convinced that appropriateness had anything to do with Rowling not being more up front about it in the actual books.  The woman was already getting her books burned because she was writing about witchcraft.  I don't think she really cared that much about reactionists.)


DDog

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 187
    • Twitter
Reply #85 on: January 10, 2008, 04:06:09 AM
I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Ask a Tranny Podcast
"Watching someone bootstrap themselves into sentience is the most science fiction thing you can do." -wintermute


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #86 on: January 10, 2008, 04:08:01 AM
Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

No, but it is more traumatic for the adults who think they are protecting children by freaking out about such things. 

Actual kid reactions to such news would likely range from "So?" or "What does that mean?" to "Ew!" or maybe "My God, what a relief to find out that I'm not the only one in the world who feels that way, and that it isn't the horrible secret that I thought it was because of the way my parents talk about it."

I've noticed, speaking as a child with many years of experience, that adults seem to have arbitrarily decided that it's good to de-sensitize us to violence in order to "toughen us up" for our own protection in the big bad world, but generally keep us utterly in the dark about anything that has to do with our "naughty bits"... in order to protect us.  Having just served on the jury in a molestation case, I'd like to tell you all that kind of thinking doesn't protect children; it makes them more vulnerable.

If it was just a matter of being okay with me and my family, I'd just say, "Sure, Dumbledore can be gay," and view it as an opportunity to introduce the topic to my kids.  (And for full disclosure, yes, we have had other opportunities to talk about it with the eldest; we explained what homosexuality means in neutral terms, told her how strongly some people feel about it, and that she could always talk to us about it because we don't feel strongly either way.)

But my failure of imagination in this case has more to do with my own high threshhold of "how do you justify the hate-filled backlash from outing Dumbledore"?  I can't see a scenario where confirming his orientation would be worth the brouhaha about it. 

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #87 on: January 10, 2008, 05:04:22 AM
I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Ah.  So your argument is against people (as in say, parents of readers) who are complaining against the appropriateness of Dumbledore's sexuality despite the rising bodycount?  I must've misread that somehow.  Carry on, then.  No argument here. :)


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #88 on: January 10, 2008, 09:29:27 AM
I understand that having actual gay characters is a sideline to Rowling's plot and messages (she chooses instead to couch a message of acceptance or tolerance in terms of pureblood vs other, which is perfectly reasonable). My reasoning was less of a blanket argument for Dumbledore being out in book-timeline, and more of a response to counter-arguments that aren't story-driven but involve the "appropriateness" of children being exposed to the topic of homosexuality.

Ah.  So your argument is against people (as in say, parents of readers) who are complaining against the appropriateness of Dumbledore's sexuality despite the rising bodycount?  I must've misread that somehow.  Carry on, then.  No argument here. :)


Then I also was in full agreement.  My response to Dumbledore being gay was just, "I can see it." 



Loz

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
    • Blah Flowers
Reply #89 on: January 13, 2008, 06:30:42 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot.  A charactor being gay could only distract.  There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #90 on: January 13, 2008, 06:52:37 PM
I can't remember whether this has been said already, and I'm sorry for the zombie topic, but I just thought of this point earlier today. There was some debate about whether it would have been appropriate for Dumbledore (or any other character, for that matter) to be openly gay during the story--and it struck me that people die in Harry Potter. And they die in some pretty gruesome ways. Is a friend or relative or teacher being gay really a more traumatic topic for children than the violent deaths of friends, relatives, and teachers?

The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot.  A charactor being gay could only distract.  There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

But the story is just as strong without knowing that Dumbledore was gay (I didn't realize that when I first read the book, though I don't find it at all incongruous). The story would be impossible if all the deaths were removed (note that for some specific deaths, it can be argued that they could or should have been removed. But violent death as a theme is integral to HP in a way that sexuality is not).



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #91 on: January 13, 2008, 07:24:35 PM

Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

Good point; if the author says it is so, then it is so, regardless of any specific "outing" in the text.  All of my arguing revolves around whether or not it should be revealed, and the reaction of the audience... if he simply IS, and the text stands in that light, then I have nothing to say. (Except maybe "please don't over-react" directed at those who will inevitably be upset.)

Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?  ;)

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #92 on: January 13, 2008, 07:58:57 PM
The thing is that the deaths were directly relavent to the plot.  A charactor being gay could only distract.  There would be people screaming about the immorality of it and people screaming she just did it for the publicity.
Erm, but Dumbledore WAS gay and fancied Grindelwald, so your argument doesn't really work.

My point was that as part of the back story it didn't matter.  If JKR says he's gay or says he just bonded with the bad boy, it doesn't change the book at all.  Therefore she doesn't say it, because it would just distract from the story itself. 

Honestly, how would you have reacted?  How would it have changed how you read the book?



Loz

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 370
    • Blah Flowers
Reply #93 on: January 27, 2008, 11:08:12 AM
Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?  ;)

I say we nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #94 on: January 27, 2008, 02:37:29 PM
Good thing we aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks?  ;)

I say we nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

LOL!*  Good thing YOU aren't deciding the fate of the world here, eh, folks? :D





*I rarely "LOL" so when I do, you know you provoked a real, honest-to-goodness guffaw.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!