evilhippo | So guys, about that Dumbledore thing

I think probably 90% of my friendslist has mentioned it now, and to save myself from posting a ranting reply to every single one, I should probably give my two cents. (I already ranted at

solitaryjane...)

Because (I will probably never be forgiven for this by fandom at large), I'm probably one of the only ones who's thoroughly annoyed at this. Not because Dumbledore is gay (that's kind of cool, and I'm glad Rowling can acknowledge that there was subtext), but because JKR is freaking nuts since she discovered her own fandom and she's been self-indulgently pandering to that group of (rather obviously equally nuts at times) people since then. What's written is written. What's fandom is fandom. The two are separate for a reason, and if I could go back in time, I would personally make sure JKR never discovered her fandom until the end of the books. Because I don't think she thought of Dumbeldore as gay while she was writing the books. I think this is retroactive bull to counteract the discovery that she ended the last book with (and basically stuck completely to) a completely heterosexual "happy ending," and that wasn't likely to be 1) realistic or 2) make the slash fandom happy, and the slash fandom was the only bit of fandom she seems to have ignored. (And that ending read like fanfic, gah.)

And so, I think I should probably read the books again before I completely dismiss JKR, but... let's just say I'm kind of annoyed. You can't retroactively distinguish characters as... anything, really. If (this will be the worst comparison ever, I'm warning you now) Shakespeare had come on stage after Othello and told everyone "Oh hai guyz btw Iago is flaming!" he probably would've been egged. (Or rather, I think the point is that I would've egged him.)

And so... yeah. A really English-major sort of complaint, but... JKR, leave your books alone. (I like overanalyzing things! Definitive answers are not cool! Especially when there's no reason for them.)

Edit (slightly later): After giving this ~~far~~ more thought ~~than necessary~~ I've come to the conclusion that I can prove JKR's retconning in two words: Rita Skeeter. If Dumbledore was gay don't you think she would've said something? (My memory is not perfect, something may have been implied, but I sure don't remember it.) I mean, if homosexuality even existed previous to this point in the HP universe (and I'm pretty sure it didn't), wouldn't that be a pretty good indictment of his character? Hey guys, why didn't Dumbledore marry? Hey guys, don't you think that's a bit odd? I mean, as much as it'd be fun to pretend that she couldn't have attacked his character from that angle in the wizarding world, that they were a group that could accept homosexuality, there's just no foundation for it. There just is. no. gay. in Harry Potter. Except for the bits we have fun reading into. (And maybe this is just a lack of respect on my part, not believing that JKR was writing on multiple levels with subtext.) It's a world where everyone gets married, and lives happily ever after in heteronormativity. I think the epilogue made that abundantly clear. And when it came down to "wow, my world has no gay people," who was left? Who was left that wasn't dead before she could've expressed their love for someone in no uncertain terms, or already attached? It's just Dumbledore. He was the only choice. So there. That's what's got me all riled up. It's straight-up retconning. And that's not cool. Also, it's going to annoy me a whole lot when people start seriously asking questions like "How does this affect the relationship between Harry and Dumbledore?" like they're real people and it's scandalous because behind the scenes Dumbledore could've been hitting on him. Because people will stop seeing Dumbledore as a nice old man with a twinkle in his eye who was eons of eccentric but brilliant, and start seeing him as this label. Because that's what people do sometimes, and there's no foundation against that kind of thinking in the HP universe because she wasn't writing in those terms at all, and so there will be nothing to stop people from taking Dumbledore's homosexuality any which way they want to. I don't want to see Dumbledore become Old Man Sexual Deviant. (I guess the quota of books that were bought just to be burned by religious fanatics wasn't met for the seventh book.)

~~... I will probably never stop overanalyzing pop culture. Ever. Gah.~~

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i was really amused when i heard this, and a little happy because, yeah, it's a bit more realistic that someone isn't hetero.

but, i agree with what you said here. she didn't have to come right out and say it, and why she's still answering these questions i'm not quite sure.

i also didn't like this:
One fan asked whether Albus Dumbledore, the head of the famed Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft, had ever loved anyone. Rowling smiled. "Dumbledore is gay, actually," replied Rowling as the audience erupted in surprise.

how is "dumbledore is gay" a response to "has dumbledore ever loved someone?" what, gay people aren't capable of the same sort of love? come on.

i'd have liked it a lot better if she'd just said, "yes, he had an unrequited love for gellert grindewald."

aaaanyways.

Yeah, the way she said it is actually what set me off in the first place. Like she'd been smirkingly waiting to say it for a while, and figured that was as close to the question she wanted as she was going to get.

(Gay people aren't capable of the same kind of love, obviously. Otherwise we'd let them get married.)

If (this will be the worst comparison ever, I'm warning you now) Shakespeare had come on stage after Othello and told everyone "Oh hai guyz btw Iago is flaming!" he probably would've been egged.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

That goes in my quote book.

Also, the bit about Dumbledore trying to molest Harry - NOW there's evidence that the crap that LJ's banning IS in context. Ha.

If there's gay in Harry Potter, I think Harry would've become the Hogwarts bicycle. Fred and George would've got to him WAAAAAAAAAY back and teach him how to do it right. Death Eaters probably will probably rape a lot more people, and Lupin and Sirius, had they lived, would be together happily ever after (i.e. movie number 3 zomg subtext like whoa!).

In short, there should be no "gay" in Harry Potter and Rowling was just being funny. :-)

^_^

Hehe, you know... I think you've got me on a better track here now. I am officially retconning JKR's quote to use the Sarcastic Voice. All fixed.

in response to your edit:
i find it so, so sad, and so angering, that people immediately equate homosexuality with pedophilia.

no one would ever move suspect, say, mcgonagall of having an "inappropriate" relationship with harry.

man, seriously, if those speculations start, there will be no end to my rage. :(

I've seen it already. I suspect it was sarcastic, but what scares me is that I know there are some people that will think that and oh, I can just picture the concerned mothers. And I'll want to clobber all of them. That's too much clobbering for me to handle, and so I'm just going to have to settle for being mad at JKR for disrupting the literary integrity of the HP series.

But, the first person to imply such a thing about Dumbledore in my presence will get a nice angry "Oh? You mean it couldn't be about saving the world?"... only with a lot more words, and more indignance (is that a word?).

Actually, I think this is exactly why I'm maintaining my distance from the fandom. I'm even afraid to go look at fandom_wank, because I just know it's full of stuff about this that will make me even sadder about humanity.

THANK YOU.

I've actually been saying that myself whenever people keep on mentioning it, and that's specifically why I haven't mentioned it in my own journal yet. ~_~

^_^ Good to know I'm not alone.

I can't help feeling like I'm feeding JKR's trolling by actually posting on this, but we may as well add to the redundancy. I don't imagine this is going to die down anytime soon. (-;

I think the whole thing with Grildewald adds some depth to Dumbledore, (If the subject should ever come up whilst conversing with Dumbledore's portrait I imagine it'd be very amusing. "And you thought YOU had troubles with a Dark Lord.")

It is blatant retconning and fanservice (though I can, to a degree, see Skeeter not knowing IF Dumbledore's been impotent for the last few decades and extremely discreet due to his position beforehand; so much of Dumbledore's life is not known to anyone that it simply may not have occurred to her, as well. Skeeter is not a brightest star in the sky), but I've yet to stop being amused by the variety of reactions it's prompted.

Skeeter aside, though, it makes sense that no one would have ever known anyways. This IS Dumbledore, master of keeping his life his own business. And since everything we know about anything in the books we know through Harry... it would have rung more false had it shown up in the books. There's NO reason for Harry to ever find out something like that. What would have been better would have been if she included it in that Harry-Potter-Pedia that she keeps making noise about. Very suble-like. No 'you'll find out scandalous secrets about the characters!' announcements. Just, somewhere in Dumbledore's biography, incorporating that he had a thing for Grindlewald. That would have REALLY made the internet explode. Scans everywhere! Mothers crying out "I BOUGHT THIS FOR MY CHILD, AND IT HAS THIS IN IT??!!" I would have been entertained for a good while.

...I'm saddened that what she said about Aberforth and his goats hasn't gotten more attention.

It does add depth, but it's unnecessary fanservice depth that those of us with an ability to pick up on subtext were already having a fine time with anyway.

True, but she's exactly the sort of "journalist" I could see, even if she had no proof, doing the sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge implication that he was gay, just because that's what gossips do. And so that's why I'm assuming it's proof that homosexuality was the farthest thing from JKR's mind while she was writing.

I do agree, though, that it would've made no sense in the context of the books. There was no real reason to know it, no reason for Harry to know it, because it had no bearing on things. Which is why it's even more irrelvant now. And waiting silently and just putting it in the encyclopedia is such a better idea, because then parents would have something to complain about, and people would have something to talk about, rather than this one snippet of interview. It would've been infinitely more fun. (I like subtlety, goshdarnit!) And, since I'm assuming that the encyclopedia is something like an adapted version of her series bible (which I assume she'd have), that's exactly where it'd belong. The way it is now, it's like she was just dying to say "Dumbledore was gay." Maybe she was... I mean, managing to keep it out of the seventh book must've taken some restraint, if she actually did think he was at the time. (-;

See, the goats thing was amusing. It's a shame everything has exploded over Dumbledore instead. (-;

You have to wonder about society at large with that one. Goatfucking? Oh, that's nothing. ...GAY!!!?/ HOLY SHIT STOP THE PRESSES.

I know! But then again, it's "Think of the children!" not "Think of the kids!" ::is prompty shot:: ^_^

So guys, about that Dumbledore thing

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject