Dumbledore is gay!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The argument is not to let the sound bytes "Dumbledore is gay" or "Dumbledore is not gay" override the significance of the Harry Potter series.

I agree, but I do because I don't think that it matters on whit whether he is or not.

Let me ask you a question, if JK had written a scene into the last book where Dumbledore addmitted his love for Gellert (nothing graphic, just a statement), thus making it this "canon", would you view the significance of the series in the same way?

[GrayMouser]

Except, of course, Rowling didn't say that she had decided after the fact to make Dumbledore gay, she said that the character in the books was gay.

When she decided this is an open question- maybe she felt he was gay from the start, maybe as the character was developed and fleshed out she began to consider him that way- I certainly don't know; maybe someone could ask her.

When Professor Reynolds says that Dumbledore is not gay, he is simply saying that he doesn't perceive him that way. Now, I haven't read the last four books so I don't have an opinion either way, but every media report I've read has contained something like "the rumours are true" or "fans have long speculated about Dumbledore's sexuality".

Obviously, there's been something there, at least to some people- perhaps Professor Reynolds is simply a less perceptive critic than others; possibly his own particular viewpoint has blinded him to nuances that others with a different perspective may have been more sensitive to.

When Reynolds says that a book belongs to the readers rather than only to the author, he is making a valid point- but that of course means all the readers, not just those who share his interpretations.

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

When Professor Reynolds says that Dumbledore is not gay, he is simply saying that he doesn't perceive him that way. Now, I haven't read the last four books so I don't have an opinion either way, but every media report I've read has contained something like "the rumours are true" or "fans have long speculated about Dumbledore's sexuality".

Obviously, there's been something there, at least to some people- perhaps Professor Reynolds is simply a less perceptive critic than others; possibly his own particular viewpoint has blinded him to nuances that others with a different perspective may have been more sensitive to.

Just about every character in the Harry Potter series has been the subject of similar speculation, and Dumbledore wasn't top of the list of potential gay characters by any means (Lupin wins that one!). I don't think that in this case speculation is evidence that there were any clues to pick up on.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.

No doubt!

Relativity in action.

[inked]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I agree, but I do because I don't think that it matters on whit whether he is or not.

Let me ask you a question, if JK had written a scene into the last book where Dumbledore addmitted his love for Gellert (nothing graphic, just a statement), thus making it this "canon", would you view the significance of the series in the same way?

Yes. Dumbledore as gay in canon would still be a celibate homosexual not acting on his "orientation" and modeling a Christian dealing with the matter of sexuality. Rather like St Augustine after his conversion, though St Augustine was heterosexual in his "orientation".

What do you think?

Greymouser, you clearly need to read more on the 'Moot if you think that the publication of the HoME (essentially a very detailed posthumous elaboration of the authorial thought processes) has altered the canon. In fact, it illustrates the very principle that authorial commentary (intra operis posthumousoso) is NOT germane to the published product and its effects. This is a very Tolkien viewpoint upon which he based a career in Beowulf et alia. One may wonder, surmise, guess, or speculate on what the author was thinking or sublimating or avoiding et cetera BUT one has only the text.

That's why the 'Moot is so popular. We all think we know what JRRT intended. What he said about it merely corroborates my correct ideas. If you don't believe me, ask BJ if JRRT corroborates his ideas.

sun-star, eminently correct. No data in the canon = no data. Speculation=no data. Authorial commentary = no data. Damn. It would appear that no data = no data.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Except, of course, Rowling didn't say that she had decided after the fact to make Dumbledore gay, she said that the character in the books was gay.

Well, that's right. And we didn't say that she did say she had decided after--that he should be gay. It's only a guess that she decided to make him gay afterwards.

Actually I think it's quite funny that people who insist on authorial intent trumping everything when discussing Tolkien or Lewis are in this case saying we should ignore the author and instead give weight to the opinions of- horrors!- literary critics.

One has to have room for a little doubt now and then, right?

One more thing: it's no big deal to have Dumbledore "be gay". Afterall, Dorian Gay...er,uh... Dorian Gray is also homosexual, and it is a fascinating story.

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

Uh, no he wasn't. Did you see something that I did not see? And I watched those PJ films over and over and over again, and have always been well familiar with McKellan's private homosexuality, but neither he nor the director & writers of this film series had any covert, hush-hush "gay agenda."

So, what?! What "gay Gandalf thing" are you tal - no, Tolkien about? Ian McKellan never "implicated something that was far from JRRT's intent onscreen," Hectorberlioz. If this is what you think, can you back your opinion up with some facts and examples, please? Because I sure as hell never saw any gay agenda in the films. If anything, the so-called "gayness" I would have said seemed most easily read from Elijah Wood & Sean Astin's awesome Frodo & Sam portrayal. If you wanna get all "find the gayness in the movie and mock it" about this, Hectorberlioz.

[BeardofPants]

Hunh. So *that* explains why Frodo looked so constipated in the films - he caught teh gay? I woulda never guessed.

[hectorberlioz]

Watch the commentaries.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Yes. Dumbledore as gay in canon would still be a celibate homosexual not acting on his "orientation" and modeling a Christian dealing with the matter of sexuality. Rather like St Augustine after his conversion, though St Augustine was heterosexual in his "orientation".

What do you think?

Fair enough, though, does intent matter (i.e. choosing celibacy vs. celibacy because the right person hasn't come along)?

[inked]

If there was canon to argue about, I would.

Hypothetically, since Dumbledore had over a century of celibacy to his credit (there being no canonical sexual activity), I suspect he had the INTENTION of being so permanently.

[inked]

But JKR can't please all her public:

OUTING DUMBLEDORE
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...675622,00.html

This is an interesting take without regard to canon for either Tolkien, Lewis, Spielberg, or Rowling. It's a pretty large confusion that conflates Aslan, Gandalf, Yoda, and Dumbledore.

So, what do you think of this guy's take on the topic?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So, what do you think of this guy's take on the topic?

I think it's silly.

It stems from the beliefs that someone must be fundamentally different because of the choices they make in life. It's the role model syndrome.

When people read books they tend to visualize the characters they admire as sharing they same qualities they do. What if Dumbledore was a muslim? What if he was an atheist?

It doesn't take too much life experience to realize that good people come in all shapes and sizes, and all colors on ones moral spectrum.

I think that it stems from a fundamental fear that some people can act in all the ways one would expect them to act and yet, at the same time, not follow the same moral view that that person expects. Fear because it makes that person question that very point of view.

It won't change any "adult" points of view, because we are much too stubborn , but it's a step in the right direction for the younger ones.

One day the idea that Dumbledore is gay won't be news.

[durinsbane2244]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Uh, no he wasn't. Did you see something that I did not see? And I watched those PJ films over and over and over again, and have always been well familiar with McKellan's private homosexuality, but neither he nor the director & writers of this film series had any covert, hush-hush "gay agenda."

So, what?! What "gay Gandalf thing" are you tal - no, Tolkien about? Ian McKellan never "implicated something that was far from JRRT's intent onscreen," Hectorberlioz. If this is what you think, can you back your opinion up with some facts and examples, please? Because I sure as hell never saw any gay agenda in the films. If anything, the so-called "gayness" I would have said seemed most easily read from Elijah Wood & Sean Astin's awesome Frodo & Sam portrayal. If you wanna get all "find the gayness in the movie and mock it" about this, Hectorberlioz.

i feel that this was a very good point and am anxiously awaiting hector's response...*glances pointedly at our proud president*

[inked]

More resources and opinions:

JKR herself
http://www.lsj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...3003/1001/news

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/books/story/2...r.html?ref=rss

http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/vide...k_rowling.html

Others:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154416,00.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...675622,00.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071021/...ter_dumbledore

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertai...l_tab04_layout

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...ck=1&cset=true

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2797 Take that, Christian Harry Potter fans

http://theamericanscene.com/2007/10/...gay-headmaster

Wear it now she's bared it!
http://www.customizedgirl.com/cgi-bi...FRGCGgodaTu4Rg

HP and the Author who won't Shut Up
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.2292bdc.html

http://markshea.blogspot.com/2007_10...22148562563331

http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=198#comments

related:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/hom...-gay-christian

http://cacciaguida.blogspot.com/2007...99456316358412

[hectorberlioz]

I DID respond. Watch FotR with the commentaries.

[Lotesse]

No you DIDN'T respond. I have watched the commentaries, Hectorberlioz, every single commentary and extra from all the DVDs in the trilogy. If you are going to make a wild statement such as

Originally Posted by Hectorberlioz

The "gay" Gandalf thing of Ian McKellen did bother me, because he was implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN!

then it is completely reasonable for people to expect, and be able to get, evidence from you that supports your wild claim. Evidence does now eman flippantly saying "Watch the commentaries" and then you're off the hook. Evidence means quoting whatever exact phrase from this commentary of which you speak, and directing our attentions to the place in the commentary, so that we can look at our own DVDs and find this reference and be made aware of it.

You think you can do that, Hectorberlioz? Otherwise, we can't take you seriously with your statement, at all.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

No you DIDN'T respond. I have watched the commentaries, Hectorberlioz, every single commentary and extra from all the DVDs in the trilogy. If you are going to make a wild statement such as then it is completely reasonable for people to expect, and be able to get, evidence from you that supports your wild claim. Evidence does now eman flippantly saying "Watch the commentaries" and then you're off the hook. Evidence means quoting whatever exact phrase from this commentary of which you speak, and directing our attentions to the place in the commentary, so that we can look at our own DVDs and find this reference and be made aware of it.

You think you can do that, Hectorberlioz? Otherwise, we can't take you seriously with your statement, at all.

There's actually a thread about this, Lotesse. I've actually talked at great length about Ian McKellen's influence on the story, and what he said in the commentaries about the hobbits holding hands being an implication of gayhood etc....WATCH THE COMMENTARY TO FOTR.

[Lotesse]

Therefore, Hectorberlioz, if there's "actually a thread about this," and you have "actually talked at great length about Ian McKellen's influence on the story, and what he said in the commentaries about the hobbits holding hands being an implication of gayhood," then I wonder: why is it suddenly so difficult for you to quote your sources & supporting evidence right here, right now?

If you've gone to such great lengths to discuss this topic before, one would imagine you'd be so well-versed and familiar with your claim and your supporting evidence that it would, indeed, be no big deal at all for you to post here a simple sentence or two here about it.

One would imagine that, due to your having "actually talked at great length" about your claim & your referring evidence, i.e. the exact spot in the commentary which you allude to as evidence, that it would be so easily accessible in your memory that you could immediately post a reply to my query, describing to me this evidence and explaining to me why you feel it supports your claim of a "gay Gandalf thing" of "Ian McKellen...implicating something that was far from JRRT's intent ON SCREEN."

Again, referring me to some other thread or some other place where you've "talked at great length" about this in the past is not a reply to my question, nor is "Watch the commentaries" a reply. Cop-out, yes. Reply, no.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Therefore, Hectorberlioz, if there's "actually a thread about this," and you have "actually talked at great length about Ian McKellen's influence on the story, and what he said in the commentaries about the hobbits holding hands being an implication of gayhood," then I wonder: why is it suddenly so difficult for you to quote your sources & supporting evidence right here, right now?

Because I'm sick of the topic, that's why. I'm sorry, but there's no more energy that I want to put into it. Try the "Will the Hobbit Movie Happen" thread, where it is discussed at length.