JK Rowling reveals Hogwarts secret

[horacethegrey]

Eh? This news just provoked a certified "What the Hell?" response from me. Was Miss Rowling wanting to make a point here?

Then again, I'd have to give kudos to her that she never revealed it until now. It's seems many fiction writers nowadays just write gay people in their stories just cause they have a proverbial axe to grind (*cough*Judd Winick*cough*). Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.

 

[megamania]

Eh? This news just provoked a certified "What the Hell?" response from me. Was Miss Rowling wanting to make a point here?

Then again, I'd have to give kudos to her that she never revealed it until now. It's seems many fiction writers nowadays just write gay people in their stories just cause they have a proverbial axe to grind (*cough*Judd Winick*cough*). Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.

I guess that is my thoughts on the subject. Today there is to much use of being gay to bring attention (money/fame) to something. If it was done for the right reasons then fine but if only to bring new attention to the book series then no.

 

[DM_Matt]

It's important for the obvious reason: it presents children with a gay character in the most popular series in children's literature who is portrayed positively and who is held out as a role model of wisdom and kindness; not as a lecher or an aberration.

Does a kid need to know and hear that a character they read about and liked was gay? Will that help them form more positive and less prejudiced views later in life?

Yes, I think it can only help.

J.K. Rowling does not need the money; she really doesn't care about that anymore. She was making her point as a writer and a humanitarian who has had - and who will have for decades - a great influence over the minds of children the world over.

This only works though if he is somehow meaningfully gay within the work. For the author to declare a character gay after the fact, if such a judgement is entirely exogenous to what happens in the book, probably doesn't work the same way.

 

[Mallus]

If it was done for the right reasons then fine but if only to bring new attention to the book series then no.

Doesn't Rowling literally have more money than the Queen?

 

[Umbran]

This only works though if he is somehow meaningfully gay within the work.

I rather agree. If you can read the work, and never realize it, then he isn't an exemplar of what gay people can be. Stuffing it off in the apocrypha of an author's theatrical appearance after the whole thing is over and done with doesn't have the same impact.

Mind you, I think she was wise to not make it overt - if he were openly gay in the book, it would have muddled the other messages something fierce, and probably earned here rather more negative backlash from the public.

 

[Relique du Madde]

I rather agree. If you can read the work, and never realize it, then he isn't an exemplar of what gay people can be. Stuffing it off in the apocrypha of an author's theatrical appearance after the whole thing is over and done with doesn't have the same impact.

That is unless she intends to revisit the series later on in the form of a prequel book, THEN it would make an impact.


However, I think she might have also mentioned it to get more notoriety.. thus cementing her futher into the realm of media-whoredom.. Think about it, except for the movies, the series is over which means that her 15 minutes has finally ended (until she produces her next big hit). She releases the statement that Dumpledore is gay allowing her to get major press with every news outlet in the western world all the while making herself a champion of gay rights (due to the upstanding nature of Dumpledore's character).

THEN when this current generation of children grow up, those who decide to become literary academics will revisit her books and will pull out all the non-existent clues and write more thesises and academic papers about the series including those about the subject of Dumpledore's sexuality. Thus, ensuring that her books will be placed on a higher pedestal as it becomes part of academic/educational cannon insuring that her book will earn even more money as the years progress until, that is, the story becomes public domain.

Such a brilliantly evil plan... I sware, if I had the money, I'd buy her press agent cause she has no doubt the best pr person on the panet.

 

[Merkuri]

Some of the posters in this thread sound like they think Rowling made a big deal out of it. She didn't. She probably wouldn't have even brought it up if it wasn't for the question of a child during a Q-and-A session. It's not like she made a press release.

I think it's the media that is making a big deal out of this. If Rowling wanted to make a big deal out of it she would've written it into the books. The fact that you can't tell Dumbledoor's sexuality from reading the book is a sign that she didn't think it was relevant to the story, but I applaud her for having that part of his character in mind the whole time. It's another sign that her characters are not just flat embodiments of good or evil, as they seemed in the first book. They're real, living, breathing people, who happen to only exist in a book.

 

[frankthedm]

Dumbledore's sexuality has nothing to do with the story of Harry Potter at large, so kudos to her again.

That is unprovable one way or the other if Rowling ever made a writing desision based on Albus's preferences. But I'm going to bet Family Guy will find a way to use this for humor in a Herbert skit.

 

[Shalimar]

It comes off to me like she has the characters a lot more fleshed out than what she had room to put into the books. She left out his sexual preference since it wasn't germane to the story, but when she was directly asked about it she gave the information asked for. She didn't make it a big deal. I don't know what the sexual orientation of most of my teachers were it didn't have any relevance to what they were teaching. That doesn't mean they didn't have a sexual orientation though.

 

[Banshee16]

Doesn't Rowling literally have more money than the Queen?

Somehow, I doubt it.

Banshee