Dumbledore is Gay! and Other Atrocities Commited by J.K. Rowling: A Rant
So, just to start things off I want to say that I have no problem with homosexuality. I do have a problem with published authors who don't let their works speak for them. I'm looking at you, Rowling.
My problem is this: if it's not important enough to put in the novel itself, it isn't important enough to talk about in press conferences, or what have you. Let's face it, it doesn't matter that Dumbledore is gay. No really, it doesn't. It changes nothing in the way I read the novels, and mentioning it after the fact just makes me angry in the same way I get angry whenever someone mentions Tom Cruise. It's just dumb and pointless. So why bring it up? Why even answer questions from the peanut gallery? Sure, the fans like it, but I can't help but feel that everything she points out after the fact just shoots down the integrity of her writing. If it matters enough to tell the world that Dumbledore is gay, why not be direct about it, or at least hint at it with a little less subtely? In a text that's supposed to be about acceptance, wouldn't it have been wise to slip that little detail into the novel in a meaningful way? Otherwise we might just think that Dumby and Grindewald were just really good friends. That's what I thought, at least, and I consider myself a pretty close reader. Still, I could have missed it. I guess, in fact, that I did.
Maybe I just didn't spend enough time idly speculating about an old man's sexuality in a series of marginally entertaining novels. Some fans apparently had an inkling that Dumbledore might be in the closet long before Rowling's announcement. Whether that was serious speculation or puerile slashing, I have no idea, but no matter where my mind wanders on this topic I always come back to the same two words: so what? So what, he's gay, what's that supposed to mean? From there I always come to the same conclusion: It's meaningless. It means nothing.
Thus my appeal to the world. Stop Rowling from talking about her books before she ruins them with trivialities. Fun as they were to read, they're not good enough to withstand her continued talking. Let us enjoy them for what they really were, a good, quick, bubblegum-for-the-brain read, and shut her up before she lets something really useless slip.
Dumbledore is Gay! and Other Atrocities
Started by
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
, Nov 13 2007 04:49 AM
24 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_Ananke_*
Guest_Ananke_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 November 2007 - 05:42 AM
Mwahahahaha!
I'm not laughing at you. I'm just generally laughing, because that's the reaction I get whenever someone mentions the 'Dumbledore is gay' issue in my presence. Which is, as far as I, and the fandom people I know, am concerned, NOT that he's gay. It's, rather, precisely what you wrote: a big, 'So WHAT? If she wanted to make this clear, she should have.'
Some of those I know slashed Dumbledore with Grindelwald, but I think that was mostly on the typically subversive 'let's slash everything that moves, because the author won't slash anything' fandom principle. Others, like me, simply never thought of the issue... but the reaction was the same. Sheer laughter. With the occasional 'of course she would not put it in the books. That would affect the sales!'
That said, I actually sort of like Rowling's talking about her books. I like it, because I don't think I care for her, much. So, the bigger fool she's making of herself, the more cynical, malicious entertainment I get from her antics. I consider it just atonement for the disappointment of the last book...
I'm not laughing at you. I'm just generally laughing, because that's the reaction I get whenever someone mentions the 'Dumbledore is gay' issue in my presence. Which is, as far as I, and the fandom people I know, am concerned, NOT that he's gay. It's, rather, precisely what you wrote: a big, 'So WHAT? If she wanted to make this clear, she should have.'
Some of those I know slashed Dumbledore with Grindelwald, but I think that was mostly on the typically subversive 'let's slash everything that moves, because the author won't slash anything' fandom principle. Others, like me, simply never thought of the issue... but the reaction was the same. Sheer laughter. With the occasional 'of course she would not put it in the books. That would affect the sales!'
That said, I actually sort of like Rowling's talking about her books. I like it, because I don't think I care for her, much. So, the bigger fool she's making of herself, the more cynical, malicious entertainment I get from her antics. I consider it just atonement for the disappointment of the last book...
#3
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 13 November 2007 - 08:13 AM
Oh, another one of you guys who couldn't care less in 1,000 words or more. 
Although maybe I shouldn't mitigate things with emoticons, since it looks like we might finally have a topic fit for this forum in our hands. I mean, everyone's just been agreeing here for most of the time, which is just wrong. But I will say I don't take this seriously, even if I'm about to get sarcastic.
J. K. Rowling, in an alternative world where she's reasonable: "I'm sorry, I don't want to answer questions to my fans, because it will annoy the people who don't like my works and thus are annoyed by how everyone keeps going on about them and wants to know more and stuff. This, of course, is synonymous to 'it will make me look like a fool'."
Bottom line, I think: No, I guess it's not necessary for the story if it wasn't there in the first place. But if people want to hear more, there's no reason not to tell them. And they sure do. It's not like Rowling's not answering any popular demand in answering questions. I'm not convinced that so much detracts from the value of her work as happens to annoy you.
Although maybe I shouldn't mitigate things with emoticons, since it looks like we might finally have a topic fit for this forum in our hands. I mean, everyone's just been agreeing here for most of the time, which is just wrong. But I will say I don't take this seriously, even if I'm about to get sarcastic.
J. K. Rowling, in an alternative world where she's reasonable: "I'm sorry, I don't want to answer questions to my fans, because it will annoy the people who don't like my works and thus are annoyed by how everyone keeps going on about them and wants to know more and stuff. This, of course, is synonymous to 'it will make me look like a fool'."
Bottom line, I think: No, I guess it's not necessary for the story if it wasn't there in the first place. But if people want to hear more, there's no reason not to tell them. And they sure do. It's not like Rowling's not answering any popular demand in answering questions. I'm not convinced that so much detracts from the value of her work as happens to annoy you.
#4
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 November 2007 - 03:14 AM
Mwahahahaha!
I'm not laughing at you. I'm just generally laughing, because that's the reaction I get whenever someone mentions the 'Dumbledore is gay' issue in my presence. Which is, as far as I, and the fandom people I know, am concerned, NOT that he's gay. It's, rather, precisely what you wrote: a big, 'So WHAT? If she wanted to make this clear, she should have.'
YES!! Our minds are one!
Some of those I know slashed Dumbledore with Grindelwald, but I think that was mostly on the typically subversive 'let's slash everything that moves, because the author won't slash anything' fandom principle. Others, like me, simply never thought of the issue... but the reaction was the same. Sheer laughter. With the occasional 'of course she would not put it in the books. That would affect the sales!'
I kind of get a similar impression, either that or, it just wasn't important enough to make it into the story in anything other than vauge hints. Why can't her work stand on it's own? If she had to mention it, why not show in the text where we can see her talking about it?
That said, I actually sort of like Rowling's talking about her books. I like it, because I don't think I care for her, much. So, the bigger fool she's making of herself, the more cynical, malicious entertainment I get from her antics. I consider it just atonement for the disappointment of the last book...
She has much to atone for, I agree.
-Blue
[/b]
#5
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 November 2007 - 03:34 AM
Oh, another one of you guys who couldn't care less in 1,000 words or more.
Less, I hope.
Although maybe I shouldn't mitigate things with emoticons, since it looks like we might finally have a topic fit for this forum in our hands. I mean, everyone's just been agreeing here for most of the time, which is just wrong. But I will say I don't take this seriously, even if I'm about to get sarcastic.
I appreciate your preface.
J. K. Rowling, in an alternative world where she's reasonable: "I'm sorry, I don't want to answer questions to my fans, because it will annoy the people who don't like my works and thus are annoyed by how everyone keeps going on about them and wants to know more and stuff. This, of course, is synonymous to 'it will make me look like a fool'."
Or alternatively, 'everything you need to know is in the book, let me give you page numbers, and here's some explanation to go along with it.' That of course only works if you're a good enough writer to get eveything in the book in the first place, however.
Bottom line, I think: No, I guess it's not necessary for the story if it wasn't there in the first place. But if people want to hear more, there's no reason not to tell them. And they sure do. It's not like Rowling's not answering any popular demand in answering questions. I'm not convinced that so much detracts from the value of her work as happens to annoy you.
Sure, the fans like it. I also think that Rowling enjoys the attention and the chance to lecture the world from her little pulpit.
Rowling was writing a story in which understanding differences and accepting them and rejecting prejudices are important themes (or really all part of one theme) so why on earth would she leave out the fact that one of her central characters is gay?
Maybe you're right, but I can't help but think, my annoyance aside, that having to make it clear that Dumbledore is gay after the fact, hints at the fact that she wasn't able to make it clear in the text without stating it explicitly. She's not very good with subtly, I've noticed. Either it's too much or it's not enough, blindingly obvious or hoplessly obscure. Good writers manage to get somewhere in the middle, elusive but comprehensible. Rowling's efforts are scattershot and inconsistent, even for a series of children's book. She had a solidly entertaining first book, and it went downhill from there, in direct relation to the amount of money and attention she got, I think.
So maybe I should clarify, it either points to a weakness in the writing, if she tried to let us know about it in the texts, or in the writer.
-Blue
#6
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 14 November 2007 - 06:21 AM
More like four hundred in my estimate, literally speaking.Oh, another one of you guys who couldn't care less in 1,000 words or more.
Less, I hope.
There's need to know, and there's want to know, and, that said, a good writer wouldn't try to say everything in the limited space of a story.Or alternatively, 'everything you need to know is in the book, let me give you page numbers, and here's some explanation to go along with it.' That of course only works if you're a good enough writer to get eveything in the book in the first place, however.
I won't even say anything about those kind of views that say a lot should be left obscure and to the reader's imagination, because I don't really agree.
Pejorative word choices aside, I'd sure enjoy all that, at least provided I didn't get tired of it.Sure, the fans like it. I also think that Rowling enjoys the attention and the chance to lecture the world from her little pulpit.
I don't know, but it works as it is and I do find it a little difficult to imagine that being fit in there. Maybe she didn't feel up to tackling it or was mainly concerned with other kinds of prejudice.Rowling was writing a story in which understanding differences and accepting them and rejecting prejudices are important themes (or really all part of one theme) so why on earth would she leave out the fact that one of her central characters is gay?
Hmmm... nope, I have no idea what you're talking about.Maybe you're right, but I can't help but think, my annoyance aside, that having to make it clear that Dumbledore is gay after the fact, hints at the fact that she wasn't able to make it clear in the text without stating it explicitly. She's not very good with subtly, I've noticed. Either it's too much or it's not enough, blindingly obvious or hoplessly obscure. Good writers manage to get somewhere in the middle, elusive but comprehensible. Rowling's efforts are scattershot and inconsistent, even for a series of children's book. She had a solidly entertaining first book, and it went downhill from there, in direct relation to the amount of money and attention she got, I think.
When I think about that, it actually doesn't clarify things to me at all. I won't say I didn't get the gist of it in what you said earlier, I might have, I'm just not sure about this particular way of putting it.So maybe I should clarify, it either points to a weakness in the writing, if she tried to let us know about it in the texts, or in the writer.
#7
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
Guest_The Blue Sorceress_*
-
- Guests
Posted 16 November 2007 - 01:39 AM
Ah well, I'm not really that grumpy about it anymore anyway. Perhaps I'm more annoyed that she insists on talking about these things (and that there are people who are out there, encouraging her to do so) than anything else. It seems pretty silly to me (perhaps a little unprofessional? Maybe that's it.)
-Blue
-Blue
#8
Guest_Lord E_*
Guest_Lord E_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:11 PM
I agree. If it was relevant to the story, it should have been there for us to see. And it is not, what's the point of mentioning it? If it wasn't JKR, I'd say it's pathetic craving for attention - but doesn't she have all the attention one could possibly want already?
#9
Laufey
-
- Moderators
-
- 18306 posts
Transcendant
Posted 11 December 2007 - 01:52 PM
I couldn't agree more. I don't mind Dumbledore being gay, what I mind is an author who bloody well won't shut up, and who constantly tells her readers off if they interpret her books differently than she intended, or God forbid, like other characters than they ought to according to the Sacred Rowling. She's been downright rude to her readers more than once about this, and I really can't stand her behavior.
One real gem was when she was derisive about people who cried about Hedwig's death, because she was 'only an animal', and there had just been Human Death in the book (Of an utter nonentity of a character to whom the readers had no emotional ties at all.)
Stupid woman.
/rant over
One real gem was when she was derisive about people who cried about Hedwig's death, because she was 'only an animal', and there had just been Human Death in the book (Of an utter nonentity of a character to whom the readers had no emotional ties at all.)
Stupid woman.
/rant over
Rogues do it from behind.
#10
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:05 PM
Well, that was a different argument altogether from the one that just goes "why does she say things that weren't in the books" that the others have been advancing. I'm not even sure your statement that you agree with previous opinions was correct. If the shall we say empirical interpretations (I'd say "facts" if there wasn't for experiences like all the Aerie discussions here) you mention are true I agree with you, but that doesn't mean I see any merit to the arguments in, say, the rest of this thread minus what I wrote myself./rant over
#11
Guest_Lord E_*
Guest_Lord E_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 December 2007 - 04:41 PM
Disagreement, you want? Very well.
A good writer can comment her work. Broaden the themes in it, discuss them in-depth and offer her opinion on them, analyze the characters or mention unused story ideas. One of my favourite authors, Michael Connelly, does just that in these articles:
http://www.michaelco...ther_words.html
A good writer does not, however, come up with a totally disconnected piece of "shock value" information, especially not if she is a well known, best-selling author. That is just tacky. JKR has no class.
As it matters, the piece of information itself does annoy me. JKR lectures, as she often does in what Laufey so accurately describes. She uses her position as a popular author of widely read books to say "hey, look, the character I like and many readers as well is gay - that means being gay is O-kay!" I dislike being preached to and moralized by authors. If she wants to say that being gay is okay, let her put that in her story and let the readers decide.
And that brings me to another piece of annoyance. The timing of the revelation seems calculated. If she didn't have the courage to tackle the issue of tolerance towards homosexuality in her story when it was going on, then shut the heck up now. That's how it looks to me, though naturally a more benevolent interpretation of her motives is possible.
A good writer can comment her work. Broaden the themes in it, discuss them in-depth and offer her opinion on them, analyze the characters or mention unused story ideas. One of my favourite authors, Michael Connelly, does just that in these articles:
http://www.michaelco...ther_words.html
A good writer does not, however, come up with a totally disconnected piece of "shock value" information, especially not if she is a well known, best-selling author. That is just tacky. JKR has no class.
As it matters, the piece of information itself does annoy me. JKR lectures, as she often does in what Laufey so accurately describes. She uses her position as a popular author of widely read books to say "hey, look, the character I like and many readers as well is gay - that means being gay is O-kay!" I dislike being preached to and moralized by authors. If she wants to say that being gay is okay, let her put that in her story and let the readers decide.
And that brings me to another piece of annoyance. The timing of the revelation seems calculated. If she didn't have the courage to tackle the issue of tolerance towards homosexuality in her story when it was going on, then shut the heck up now. That's how it looks to me, though naturally a more benevolent interpretation of her motives is possible.
#12
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 December 2007 - 05:12 PM
It's possible I would disagree with you about Rowling's behaviour (again, remembering how we've disagreed game characters' behaviour), but I really don't know about that one way or the other. All I've seen, well, until today, has been the information gained from her and people's reactions apparently to that as such. And the point is precisely that there could be a more benevolent interpretation of motives, and since criticism seemed directed at the letting out of information as such, I saw that as defeating the criticism. I always imagined her as, well, doing what you said authors can do, for example revealing things that were already a part of the unshown background of the story.
I recognise your point as valid, given your premises about which I'm not at all sure but which I'm not at all sure are untrue either.
I recognise your point as valid, given your premises about which I'm not at all sure but which I'm not at all sure are untrue either.
#13
Laufey
-
- Moderators
-
- 18306 posts
Transcendant
Posted 11 December 2007 - 09:42 PM
Well, that was a different argument altogether from the one that just goes "why does she say things that weren't in the books" that the others have been advancing. I'm not even sure your statement that you agree with previous opinions was correct. If the shall we say empirical interpretations (I'd say "facts" if there wasn't for experiences like all the Aerie discussions here) you mention are true I agree with you, but that doesn't mean I see any merit to the arguments in, say, the rest of this thread minus what I wrote myself./rant over
*shrug*
I dare say I veered off on something of a tangent - what I described is another aspect of her behavior that I greatly dislike, though it may not be exactly what was described in the OP.
I still agree with what Blue said though, or at least how I interpreted it.
Rogues do it from behind.
#15
Guest_Joe_*
Guest_Joe_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 March 2008 - 01:38 PM
Guess this was a ways in the past but I did want to say I agree. Texts should speak for themselves. A far better response would be, if a fan asks something about Dumbledore's past loves, would be to say "That's a matter of interpretation, but I do think it's interesting you're assuming he's straight in that question."
Wouldn't grab the headlines, though.
Wouldn't grab the headlines, though.
#16
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 08 March 2008 - 08:23 PM
How is that not just a way of saying he's gay while pretending you're not saying it?A far better response would be, if a fan asks something about Dumbledore's past loves, would be to say "That's a matter of interpretation, but I do think it's interesting you're assuming he's straight in that question."
#17
Guest_Ananke_*
Guest_Ananke_*
-
- Guests
Posted 09 March 2008 - 09:01 AM
Because, precisely, it leaves the option that the man's sexual orientation is not important for him as a character. As in:How is that not just a way of saying he's gay while pretending you're not saying it?A far better response would be, if a fan asks something about Dumbledore's past loves, would be to say "That's a matter of interpretation, but I do think it's interesting you're assuming he's straight in that question."
"So you're saying he's gay, Ms. Rowling?"
"I'm saying, 'Would it matter if he were?' If I thought his sexual orientation was crucial to the understanding of Harry's story, I would have put it in the text."
I think it's a question of style. Her style is more, "Oooh! I'm so smart! I put a gay character in a best-selling series of children's books! I'm so wonderful!"
In other words, the Japanese way (of leaving what you say vague and open to interpretation) has its merits. And especially: if she went that way in the text, and let the reader decide whether Dumbledore was gay, straight, and if it at all mattered--as you put it, 'saying he's gay while pretending you're not saying it' --she should have kept to the manner outside of the books, too.
#18
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 March 2008 - 07:56 AM
So, to bring up his sexual orientation just to say it's not important and that you're not implying anything about it? I stand by my original statement.Because, precisely, it leaves the option that the man's sexual orientation is not important for him as a character.
#19
Guest_Joe_*
Guest_Joe_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 March 2008 - 10:29 PM
How is that not just a way of saying he's gay while pretending you're not saying it?
Because you're not saying it. You're not even saying anything that inevitably leads to that conclusion. You're pointing out that the text does not discount the possibility. And you're making a statement on society's view of gays on another level, drawing attention to the fact that there is a presumption of heterosexuality in the question.
#20
Guest_Clight_*
Guest_Clight_*
-
- Guests
Posted 12 March 2008 - 09:44 AM
No, not inevitably. But it brings up the whole topic where you'd hardly have reason to unless, well, there is a reason. Not technically saying it is just part of the pretense of not saying it at all as I was presenting it.How is that not just a way of saying he's gay while pretending you're not saying it?
Because you're not saying it. You're not even saying anything that inevitably leads to that conclusion.
That's no great insight, since the assumption is simply statistically reasonable, in real life at least. Only something like a couple of per cent of people are gay (no, not ten).You're pointing out that the text does not discount the possibility. And you're making a statement on society's view of gays on another level, drawing attention to the fact that there is a presumption of heterosexuality in the question.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
