Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on That Gay Wizard

1

Look at that, even Harry Potter is homophobic...

Posted by Amelia | October 26, 2007 11:47 AM
2

i've never read any of these books but it seems completely irrelevant to even mention the characters' sexuality. unless there's some hot wizard-on-wizard action going on between those pages that i'm not privvy to, being completely outside the HP loop....?

well in any case, what seemed to me to be an inconsequential afterthought on rowling's part has set off quite a shitstorm amongst the 'wingers. o'reilly has complained that this will have the disturbing result of teaching kids "tolerance" of the gays. tolerance! the nerve!

Posted by brandon | October 26, 2007 11:49 AM
3

this is what fanfic is for. ridiculous, out of control, homosexual behavior.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 26, 2007 11:55 AM
4

I feel asleep halfway through this post. What happened?

Posted by gay dude. | October 26, 2007 11:55 AM
5

The only words in this post I agree with - "I don’t really give a shit".

Posted by Providence | October 26, 2007 11:57 AM
6

She usually doesn't bring this stuff up until someone asks a direct question. Its completely possible more of the characters are 'mos, and she simply hasn't felt its important to out them yet. She took this long to out Dumbledore, and that's a pretty freaking big deal. I think it speaks to her forward thinking that she didn't feel she needed to mention his sexuality because it didn't add or detract anything from the story.

Posted by Carlydear | October 26, 2007 11:57 AM
7

Dumbledore isn't gay. She needs to stop being an idiot. Her characters are textbook, what she has to say about them outside of the pages is worthless, and it's practically PR at this point.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 26, 2007 11:59 AM
8

It's a publicity stunt. The new DVD is "coming out" in time for Christmas.

Posted by PA Native | October 26, 2007 12:00 PM
9

As to why to 'out' him.
She outed him because some readers asked if Dumbledore had ever been in love, and she decided to answer the question.

She'd decided when working out the backgrounds that Dumbledore had been in love with a wizard that in the books he's merely said to have been very very "close friends" with.

A lot of her backgrounds, romances included, never actually made it on page; she's not actually that good at writing romantic relationships at all; Harry's own relationship is kept off-page as much as possible. So when she's no good with romance anyway, why stir up controversy then? But she decided to answer hte question.

Posted by katherine | October 26, 2007 12:01 PM
10

It IS all PR. Had to have something to bring the books back to the forefront of the public mind. This convinces ppl to re-read the books to look for signs of 'mo-ness they missed the first time.

Posted by NaFun | October 26, 2007 12:02 PM
11

OMG SPOILERZ!!1

Posted by kid icarus | October 26, 2007 12:03 PM
12

One reason she even said it is cause they were going to add a flashback scene in the new movie about Dumbledore and some past girl friend. She stopped them from doing that and told them the reason is that he's gay and not just gay, the character is meant to have a lot of tragedy in his life. If you've read the book you know what I mean. And one of his tragedies is that the man he loved turned out to be his nemesis.
I'd say she had a nice story in place and it definitely was NOT an afterthought or PR gimmick.
Also, fan asked, she answered.

Posted by arandomdude | October 26, 2007 12:07 PM
13

Harry Potter sucks. I couldn't even get through the first one. I can't imagine reading all 300 of them, or however many there are.

Posted by M | October 26, 2007 12:08 PM
14

I don't really give a crap about Dumbledore either because really, what does it matter? Not a fan of HP movies, but I've been dragged to several. Prof. Snape (Alan Rickman) got my gaydar clanging from the get-go. He's a Mean Queen - bitter about something - and his quasi-hatefulness towards Harry deserves investigation. I don't think he's pedophilic, but he's wishin' the boys were older (IMHO). Plus, he's working that Oscar Wilde 'do.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 26, 2007 12:09 PM
15

Yeah, I'm with you, Dan.... if it isn't really explicit in the book that someone is gay, and then the author "outs" the character....all it really means is that Dumbledore was a nice, closeted gay, which is perfectly acceptable to right-wingers. A role-model for gays everywhere, as far as they are concerned. :P

Posted by Toby | October 26, 2007 12:13 PM
16

Here's the thing with this whole story: how do we know that Rowling didn't just make that detail up on the spot just to mess with the audience and, in turn, the whole fandom?

They, of course, are fucking nuts, so they're gonna take what was probably just a playful throwaway answer from JK, and take it as if God Himself came down to rewrite the Old Testament.

I think the only thing we can take from this is that the mainstream media is run by idiots, that HP fans are a bunch of crazed autistics, and JK Rowling played upon their rampant gullibility.

Posted by Gomez | October 26, 2007 12:14 PM
17

Snape is hot.

Posted by Amy Kate Horn | October 26, 2007 12:14 PM
18

Sorry Bauhaus, I did read the books and Snape was in love his whole life with HP's mother, which is why he hates Harry. So he can't be gay. Alan Rickman, however, is another story.

Posted by Tizzle | October 26, 2007 12:17 PM
19
Posted by Mr. Poe | October 26, 2007 12:20 PM
20

I smell a prequel.

Posted by inkweary | October 26, 2007 12:20 PM
21

It does seem irrelevant. Backstory is usually boringstory.

Posted by Katelyn | October 26, 2007 12:21 PM
22

@16

As stated above, before she told the audience, the director of Half-Blood Prince tried to put in a flashback of Dumbledore's straight lovin' and she nixed it because of this... not exactly "on the spot" if you ask me.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | October 26, 2007 12:21 PM
23

1) I think it would have been better to mention it in the books, too. But if you read the last book, you'll see that she was hinting at it pretty strongly-- it seems she outed him publicly because she was frustrated no one picked up on her hints that turned out to be too subtle.

2) I think boarding schools are only hotbeds of "situational" homosexuality if they're single-sex boarding schools.

Posted by Hmmmm | October 26, 2007 12:23 PM
24

I feel asleep again reading these comments. What happened?

Posted by gay dude. | October 26, 2007 12:25 PM
25

I dont' see what the big deal is. It's entirely possible that she had backstories for every character that didn't make it into the book - it's a pretty common thing for writers to do. In fact, I think she's answered questions from fans before with information that wasn't in the book (I remember something about one of the kid's dads being killed - wasn't in books but she talked about it in a Q&A).

She's planning to release all her notes/backstories at some point. So, will be interesting if the whole Dumbledore is gay thing made it into her notes.

Posted by Julie | October 26, 2007 12:29 PM
26

I think Dumbledore continues in the British literary tradition of quiet gay men, heroes of their age, who tragically can not express their non-heterosexual natures.

It's masterful, actually.

The only downside is that now we're going to see even more gay Potter fan fiction - I remember how gay Kirk/Spock fan fiction used to be the majority of the Trek fan fiction and how obsessed all those young women were with it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 26, 2007 12:33 PM
27

I'm torn.

Part of me really doesn't give a shit.

Part of me is mildly mad at Rowling. If she envisioned Dumbledore as gay, then I think she should have made some sort of reference to it somewhere in the thousands of pages that make up the HP saga. Bringing it up after the books are published and done is lame and a bit chicken shit. She's already made her millions (billions?), so she's taking no risk after-the-fact.

On the other hand, anything that brings O'Reilly closer to his inevitable stroke is a good thing. Watching the right wing mouthpieces having a fit is quite entertaining.

Posted by SDA in SEA | October 26, 2007 12:34 PM
28

While I of course have no way to prove this, I have it on several reliable authorities that this has been a part of the Dumbledore backstory for a long time. The information about her conversation with the scriptwriter confirms that. Also, as has been said above, she was answering a question. The PR accusations are nonsense.

I agree that it would have been amazing to have a gay character in the books, but I really do think that this is still a pretty big step. Since the books are written from Harry's point of view, I think it makes sense that this fact would not have filtered its way through his blinkered consciousness, although those who say that sexuality has no place in children's books obviously didn't read any of these.

The fact is, though, that at least this week in our oh-so-enlightened media discourse, Harry Potter Books = Gay. The fact that that was brought forth by the most popular author in the world, repeatedly defended by the same, and used as evidence for the books being, in her words, "a prolonged argument for tolerance," may not be the same as if Dean and Seamus had decided to snog in Book 6, but I'll take it. This particular cultural skirmish would have been fought earlier and perhaps more blatantly if it was in response to an explicitly narrative element, yes, but I think that since she's getting exactly the same shit from this as she would have from that that it still counts.

Though I agree that the news pays entirely too much attention to the books, I've always found Rowling to be calm, funny, and down to earth beyond anything that could be expected of that level of celebrity. I see this as her continuing to stay classy in the face of a media culture that eagerly paints her as anything but.

Posted by David | October 26, 2007 12:35 PM
29

Well it seems that some religious folks are pissed off that the HP books seem to promote witchcraft, so maybe she wants to piss of the rest of them by suggesting that one of the characters is *gasp* gay! It is kinda amusing to watch religious nuts freak out over stupid stuff like this.

Posted by Anna | October 26, 2007 12:36 PM
30

Thanks, Tizzle. You don't say? I didn't know about HP's mom. Did know, however, about Alan Rickman and perhaps that's where my confusion lies.

Posted by Bauhaus | October 26, 2007 12:36 PM
31

C'mon Dan.
Part of her not being part of the gay agenda is not being part of the gay agenda. She doesn't owe *anybody* *anything*. She's a writer, telling stories, at one point part of her copious backstories included a gay character; when someone asked, she told them. When a screenwriter inadvertently went against her character, she set him straight.
She doesn't owe "us" gay characters, just as she doesn't owe the Christianists an all-straight fantasy.

Posted by torrentprime | October 26, 2007 12:40 PM
32

OK, see, Dan, this right here is why I detest queer fiction. Because EVERY DAMN THING has to be about the gayness. Harry Potter is only PASSINGLY about Dumbledore until the last book, in which its mostly about Dumbledore's childhood and siblings. Secondly, they barely, BARELY talk about ANY romantic entanglements. Frankly, I think there's probably at least two more gay characters in HP, including Neville (who is a hero, btw). The books are so bloated with plot that they really don't go into what's going on with ancillary characters in non-crisis moments.

Why is it so bad that she didn't write "So, I was talking to Dumbledore, who was gay, and he gayly told me that the Phoenix can cure injuries!!! 'Cause he's gay!"

What did you want to happen with the Quidditch captain, exactly? I mean, the whole 2 pages he has per book? "Good job, mates! I'm gonna go troll for guys now!"

I understand (kind of) what you're saying, but HP was taking a huge stand in this current market JUST putting the word "witch" in in a non-negative way.

And the twins don't have a sexuality. They loved each other, but not in a sexy way.

Posted by Kat | October 26, 2007 12:45 PM
33

Okay, I'm a Potter fan AND a dyke… And this is moderately relevant, but at least it's a comment on the right post (argh)

There is to my knowledge one reference to gays in the books: when Dudley suggests Harry might be one right before he is attacked by Dementors in the Order of the Phoenix.

Plus, there is a lot of slash out there on Harry, most of it being found on an excellent website called The Restricted Section.

There are more specifically gay- and lesbian- themed erotic fanfiction website out there. For lesbian stories: Into Raspberry Swirl and Madam Hooch's Broom Closet (yes, Hooch definitely has lesbian vibes, but that may be because of the actress). The most obvious lesbian pairings are of course Hermione/Ginny (duh), Parvati/Padma and Lavender Brown. The bestest (gay) pairing, in my opinion but that's just my personal kinks talking of course, is Harry/ Snape, and there used to be a great archive called Walking the Plank about that precise pairing.

All of this of course is off the top of my head, but I did plan at one point to write a whole article on gays and lesbians trying to reclaim the Harry phenomenon through fanfiction. That was a few years back (sigh).

I don't know if these websites still survive (I doubt it, actually), but I have kept megatons of data- entirely for academic purposes, of course. Ahem.

Posted by Severus Still Rules | October 26, 2007 12:51 PM
34

Sorry Kat (#33) Neville marries Hannah. JKR reveals this in the same 'outing' session - even though it as well is not mentioned in the books. But I am completely with you, I do beleive there are other gay characters in the books. ( : =

Posted by subwlf | October 26, 2007 1:09 PM
35

Sorry! Meant #32!!

Posted by subwlf | October 26, 2007 1:10 PM
36

It seems that the appologists are late to the comment and I am fully with them. Especially #28.
Yes, I do love Harry Potter. Its central message is about the power of love and acceptance of others who are different from you.

As usual, I am probably spending too much time thinking about this, but I am glad to go back and read HP with Dumbledore being gay. From listening to a recent news conference, I understand it as a plot point that she didn't want to reveal until its time. Grindlewald and Dumbledore was written a little obtusely that I had no inkling that DD was a 'mo. I would have thought that I would have picked up the suggestion that would be overlooked by a child, but I was probably reading too fast to single it out. Could she have slipped it in earlier to have it become a significant plot point later? Yes. Is it an adult series masquerading as a children's book series? Yes, much like Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. After reading Strangers: Homosexual Love in the 19th century, it seems it has been common practice to hint at a character homosexuality for those in the know. If only she could have gone beyond that. Not a great step forward for the gays, but a nice little shout out from J.K. Rowling

My favorite thing she said at this press conference was:
"It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could love other men."

Posted by BassSinger | October 26, 2007 1:11 PM
37

22. She could have made that up too. All of this could be off the top of her head. Remember, she is the only real 'authority' on any of this, given she wrote the books. She knows this (remember, she's a huge control freak over the creative content) and gets a kick out of manipulating an audience.

Posted by Gomez | October 26, 2007 1:11 PM
38

What does it say about our society when learning Dumbledore was gay (and had a tragic relationship in his past) creates such a media firestorm, but leaving him as a loveless asexual (as is written in the books) would cause nary a peep?

The Puritans would be proud.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | October 26, 2007 1:12 PM
39

I just want to point out to 'Severus Still Rules' (and he does!) that Parvati and Padma are sisters... So if you think they are a gay pairing - you are thinking incest!!

Ok. I have totally outed myself as a HP nerd...

Posted by subwlf | October 26, 2007 1:13 PM
40

I can see it now...
Harry Potter and the...Sorcerer's Bone...
Chamber of Secretions...Prisoner of Asska-slam...Goblet of Chud...Odor of the Penis...Half-Blown Prince...Deathly Swallows...

Posted by Whizzard | October 26, 2007 1:14 PM
41

Enough about Harry Potter! Go read Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. He has gay characters, a harsh critique of the religious right (including a NASTY Mrs. Coulter!), and Blake/Milton/Ashbery themes and imagery throughout. It's brilliant, and better suited to adults anyway. It's time to put Harry away.

Posted by Irena | October 26, 2007 1:18 PM
42

By the way Dan, I just have to disagree with your post. I think that she chose a very English subject matter that is based on class structure and money. It isn't always about the gay.

On that note, I had been looking for a gay character when rereading the books. With acceptance featuring so prominantly, I thought there might be one.

No, she doesn't need anymore money or publicity, she has always proven herself to be a very thoughtful and down to earth woman. All her commments have been genuinely delivered.

Posted by BassSinger | October 26, 2007 1:21 PM
43

Dan, I am saddened by this post of yours. If and when the background notes of each character come out, I hope that you write another post of your apology.

Posted by Jason H. | October 26, 2007 1:32 PM
44

"Rowling didn’t see fit to mention Dumbledore’s sexuality in any of the seven HP books," eh? http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-showbiz7-23oct23,0,5726083.story

Posted by Peter | October 26, 2007 1:35 PM
45

@39: I believe the technical term is "twincest."

And since we're all Sloggers, haven't we yet learned that marrying a woman doesn't necessarily make a man straight? Come on. I know Neville has a better sense of honour than that (yes, I am also a nerd), but it's not the soundest argument.

Posted by Gloria | October 26, 2007 1:37 PM
46

It'll be a cold day in Hell before I go seeking affirmation in a children's book.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | October 26, 2007 1:46 PM
47

So only the hot, young people can be gay, Dan?

Posted by Abby | October 26, 2007 2:32 PM
48

@38: It means we don't want to think about old people having sex.

Posted by Greg | October 26, 2007 2:39 PM
49

I'm glad she revealed it. I thought it was just me. While reading the bits with AD and GG I definitely thought that there was more going on there than just a friendship. I was right. I rule.
@41-- Right on. The Pullman books are beyond excellent. I hope the movie doesn't suck.

Posted by courtlyn in pennsyltucky | October 26, 2007 2:41 PM
50

How much nicer to have changed

"I haven’t been following the Dumbledore commentary too closely because, well, I don’t really give a shit"

to

"I haven’t been following the Dumbledore commentary too closely because, well, I don’t really give a santorum"?

Posted by Charlie | October 26, 2007 3:16 PM
51

I found an interesting survey that discusses Rowling outing Dumbledore, its definitely worth a look.

Posted by Jensen | October 26, 2007 3:17 PM
52

As one half of a pair of gay identical twins, I find the idea of making out with my brother seriously gross.

That is all. Carry on.

Posted by Michigan Matt | October 26, 2007 3:35 PM
53

I kept wondering during the last book if Dumbledore's relationship was a gay one, it just didn't make sense to me as a buddy relationship, he'd invested way too much and forgiven way too much. I figured there might be, but it was a kids' book and she didn't do sexy anyway.

Plus, I agree that she doesn't really need any more PR. It's not like there are lagging sales or anysuchthing.

Posted by SpookyCat | October 26, 2007 6:06 PM
54

Actually, I think I remember reading in the Orlando Sentinel that there was a children's book with a gay theme. I don't remember the name, but it was about 2 male penguins raising a baby penguin. It was a really short article, but it said that the book had been banned by certain elementary schools. It's really a shame that the book got that sort of reaction, since I think it would show that 2 men or 2 women could do just a good a job at raising a child as a straight couple.

Posted by Anna | October 26, 2007 6:52 PM
55

Man - once again - everybody has to blather on and on about utter air, while ignoring the best part of the post :

"Jam a 'mo."

If that's not a t-shirt waiting to happen, I don't know what is.

Posted by Wowza | October 26, 2007 6:59 PM
56

@54

Anna, the book you're referring to is And Tango Makes Three. It's based on the true story of two gay penguins that live at The Central Park Zoo who raise a penguin baby from an unhatched egg provided by their keepers.

Posted by Sickgirl | October 26, 2007 11:28 PM
57

My two cents: Dan is completely right in (at least as I understand him) saying that: 1) unless you have a kid who needs to see some movies that aren't completely brain-damaging, there's no point in following this stupid f'ing story; 2) what's offensive about the whole thing is that anyone would express the least amount of surprise that a British HM-esque character is gay, and that it's actually more of a strike against JKR that the issue wasn't made more explicit in the books (not that I believe in a writer having an obligation to promote any agenda). Let's just say that these books would have had a different point of view if Alan Hollinghurst had been writing them.

Posted by The Gay Recluse | October 27, 2007 11:12 AM
58

Dan, I'm surprised at you for not understanding how valuable it is that Rowling did things the way she did. (But then, you've always had a more balls-out style, and that's part of your charm, so hey...)

But allow me to explain why Dumbledore's outing happening in THIS way (and the fact that he's the only known gay character in the series) will be so much more powerful: if we'd known all along with him or others, HP would quickly have been smacked with the label "gay book."

Think about it: you can't put gay or lesbian characters into ANY mainstream story without having it become the entire focus, as far as popular culture is concerned. And when that happens, the work becomes a staple for the GLBT loving crowd, an object of hate for the anti-gay crowd, and largely ignored by everyone else.

But what Rowling has done here is a powerful bait-and-switch. She's told an archetypal tale full of archetypal legendary figures, and she's made the most classic of this figures (the elder teacher and mentor) gay. And she waited to tell people, waited until AFTER they had come to know and love the character. She's forcing massive amounts of homophobes to deal with feelings very similar to those a conservative parent feels when they discover that their beloved child is gay.

And you're saying she should have filled her story with adolescent gay males dealing with adolescent gay male issues? That's been done a million and one times! Big deal. That sort of thing no longer has the power to rupture people's comfort zones. But a gay Dumbledore, for people who have come to live and breath the world of HP, makes a hell of a difference.

Posted by Lauren | October 27, 2007 11:43 AM
59

publicity stunt

Posted by [url=http://brianboulton.com/]-B-[/url] | October 31, 2007 3:53 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).