dumbledore is gay

[tinpra]

Why JKR...why? Just because you, as an author, know something about your character doesn't mean that you actually have to share. How does Dumbledore being gay add to the series, in any material way? If it were that important why not just make a de facto point of the series? You could have done it so easily. All those ppl whom you make digs at re not liking your series would have just had one more point against you, while the ppl whom you seem to be courting now would have loved you more. You went from a religiously and politically ambiguous series to one that quoted Scripture and seemed to take a definite stance on many of the political issues of today.

People often compare your works to the Narnia series. But you can read The Chronicles of Narnia and completely miss its Christian undertones. You don't have to be effected by it at all if you don't want to. I spent years totally oblivious. Even now, I don't think of it as a Christian series or a Christian allegory, but simply as Narnia! But now that you've spilled the beans of the internal workings of your mind, the larger world of the story that lives within the writer's own head, can I reread this series and look at Dumbledore the same way? Or even the entire series? How fundementally you've changed the story, madam, if only because of how charged a subject homosexuality is. And I'm sure someone (many someones) would argue that it shouldn't be thus, but it is and you've changed everything. For everyone. If it were not so, would your pronouncement have merritted an article in the Times?

Comments

[shaxberd.livejournal.com]

I can't really say that I'm shocked, surprised, or disappointed by this revelation. Plot-wise, the seventh book makes a lot more sense if you take into account that Dumbledore had been in love with Grindelwald. And if I recall correctly, Rita Skeeta referred to Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald as a love affair so it was never hidden from us exactly, just something we chose to ignore as readers if we were so inclined as more of the Rita Skeeta character skewing the facts for her own benefit, or just something to which we chose not to pay any real attention. In effect, not noticing is our failing really, not the author's.

I would also argue that if you didn't notice until the newspaper article, then it's the same as completely missing the christian undertones in the Chronicles of Narnia, the difference being that you're associating this revelation negatively rather than positively. With Narnia as well, someone had to point out to you the christian undertones after the fact.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

We ignored Rita's comments because 9.5/10 things that Rita reports on are made up. She is the epitome of an unreliable character. It wasn't like she said something that, based on the books, the history of her character and the history of the characters she was talking about, I was willfully ignoring something that could have been true. Rita Skeeter lies. Giving the all important "Dumbledore is gay" line to the absolute least trustworthy character in all seven books and then confirming it after the fact is low and silly and trifling. It's toying with the readers.

[shaxberd.livejournal.com]

But how many things that Rita Skeeta revealed in the seventh book were made up? For the most part, everything she said this time was true, for the most part. And granted, all the things that Rita Skeeta wrote were probably meant to be hurtful, but I don't think revealing Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was intended to harm him by outing him as a homosexual but by outing him as having had a romantic relationship with the second most evil dark wizard in all history.

[tinpra.livejournal.com]

Rita is only validated by JKR herself. The books don't validate her. Even when Dumbledore gives Harry the full story, Rita's deliberate spin is evident. Giving the message of tolerance to the least trustworthy character in the book (and by trustworthy, I mean in a narrative sense) is not a way to spread your message. One's trustworthiness is not based upon a single event but on a series of them. Just because Rita's "honest" now doesn't mean that as a reader (or as prsn in this fictitious world) that her past faults are erased. As a singular moment, it's the exception to the rule. And why wait until book seven? As someone said to me the other night, Dumbledore's sexuality could have been mentioned earlier and ever so much more gracefully. The ppl who dislike the books would have had one more thing to dislike, the ppl on the fence may or may not have had a decision to make, and the ppl who are for this kind of thing would have loved JKR ever the more.