I really hate to pitch in on this conversation at this point, but I must point out a couple of obvious things.

First, Sexual reference relative to the character was never mentioned in the stories.

Second, We do not know if she bowed to political pressure. we cannot treat assumptions as fact.

On this line, I would bet (I am assuming here) she received a lot more pressure from Christian groups that Gay rights advocates. If bowing to pressure is her mode, why not announce a heavy christian element and potentially obtain a much larger audience.

I can agree that much of the political movement (including gay rights parades) are probably not productive activities, and don't inherently represent cultural balance, but roping all people with a homosexual orientation in that catagory would be a little like claiming that all conservative religious people are terrorists. We can all see that, not only are most religious people not terrorists, but religious preferences are issues that we need to address in healthy ways in our society. As a bizarrist in Salt Lake City, I can state this from a somewhat unique perspective.

Please do not assume that I have simply jumped on a politically correct bandwagon or not carefully considered my posting. As a rule, I don't tend to ne very politically correct, but I do try to be fair. I have made similar judgements about homosexual orientation in the past. The same words came from my mouth. Simply put, I was young, and I was wrong.

As one of “those” guys, I’d like to comment.
No I don’t think Mystician’s post was bigoted,
but probably misinformed.

There really is no big, powerful, gay community lobby,
probably not even a “community”, in the sense usually meant.
The religious-right invented this menacing “lobby”
much the same way they invented “witchcraft” a few centuries back,
to have an evil-empire to argue and fight with.

I doubt very much if anyone, gay or straight, ever cared much
if there was a gay character in any of Rowling’s books.
And I do think sexual/affection orientation should
NOT be in children’s books, no matter the flavor.

And, most believe, and most scientists and psychologists agree,
gay is an “orientation”, not a “preference” I choose to be a magician,
I did not choose who I was attracted to in relationship.

I think the Dumbledore question was merely subtext,
and all good artists depend on the iceberg of subtest to hold up their art.
I know when I’ve cut 75% of a script,
the subtext in the 25% left still lingers on.

I don’t buy the conspiracy theory,
I just think she was asked a simple question,
and gave a simple answer, and from her comments and the book’s text
the Wizard’s virginity still seems to be intact, so I’d not worry.

Lastly, straight folks don’t’ parade down the streets with flags,
but then they are not beat up or killed for who they are,
but are allowed legal protections, which I am not granted.

Sorry to bring controversy into this topic!

Magically,
Walt

Walt:

I guess the 'other' thread has been removed but I had posted there what most seemed to have missed...It was OBVIOUS from the get go!

Dumbeldoor...

Dumbel: Obvious reference to Body Building...eh...nudge nudge say no more...

Dore: Door...we all know what goes on behind those!

Beard: He had a BEARD! (We all know what a 'Beard' really means!)

But the most obvious can be seen in the films...often Dumbledore looks off to the far side of the room...it is OBVIOUS he is thinking of a scene from "Cabaret"!

Marvelous!
Doug's photo has aged again, but not his sense of humor.
Magically,
Walt

Sorry guys, if I stirred up the pot a little too much.
I appreciate those of you who don't feel it was bigoted, though by my own admission, I don't always make the most sensitive posts around - and sometimes the humor I inject is misunderstood. Sports metaphors are common, like "getting to 3rd base", "hitting a home run", "hole in one", etc..

I will agree that Rowling got a whole LOT more flack from the Christian groups than anyone else - no doubt 'bout that.
I also agree, it's not a choice, it's an orientation, a part of who you/they are. (Did I word that wrong above?.. maybe)

But she also dealt with an email campaign from certain gays rights groups that chastised her for not having a gay character in Harry Potter, and I really believe this is the primary reason she did it - I think this is why the late announcement, not an ealier one. Maybe it's even a stab at the christian/rightwing groups, because they're really broiling over this, calling for bans and all sorts of stupid stuff..(like they haven't tried to ban it already?)

I'm not a conspiracy nut by any measure, but I have read about this many times in the past. if I can find a link or three to substantiate my claim, I'll post it, but right now, everything I find on Google is totally swamped out by news of the recent revelation.

I've known a lot of gay people in my lifetime - and when I think about it, wow.. I mean, quite a few. And actually, the vast majority of gay people I've known have above average intelligence. And nearly all of them don't really approve of the parades and outlandishness and such, they'd much prefer to keep their lifestyle quiet and unassuming, and go about their lives normally like anyone else.
I surely agree that violence towards them is wrong, wrong, wrong, but I don't think some of those events that the big pride groups hold are helping much. Some of those public displays are over the top, no matter what your orientation is.

But the bottom line is: sexual orientation doesn't belong in a kid's story, and I'm irked that a special interest group fought for it to be included. And even though it's not in the story, technically, it's now a part of the universe and parents are still going to be busy answering questions from kids that maybe they ought not be having to answer just yet.
That's all.

I do agree Paul, in that
adult matters do not belong in a children’s book,
and I have problems with adult issues on TV
and the internet as well.

Childhood is confusing and hard enough
without having to grow-up overnight and
worry about adult issues!!!

I love the character of Dumbledore,
fictionally “straight or gay”,
and I hope that works for most readers too.

Magically,
Walt

I'm not sure if the Harry Potter series can be considered mere "children's books."

Not exclusively Philemon, of course.

But they've brought the reading ante up a lot for children 8 to 16,
that that is a good and miraculous thing.

So, let them worry about "time of month" or "jock itch"
or "who do I love" or "am I going to war and die"
when they are older maybe.
And let kids believe in Magic and Wizardry when they are younger.

Kids grow up fast today, let them keep some innocence,
for that matter let us adults keep some innocence too!

Magically,
Walt

True, Phil - I always thought it would have been cool if JKRowling had actually written two entirely separate versions of the entire tale, one geared for the kids entirely, the other more adult oriented for us grown up HP fans.
(They make two different sets of covers already, with one for the adults that read the books.)
In that case, she could've added any element she wanted to the adult edition, and that'd be fine.

The children are not as "innocent" as we would like to believe...

And the gay subtext in this case is so well-hidden that most gay adults totally missed it.

The books can be for ALL ages and ARE. A family ride is one all can go on at Disneyland...why would I need a Potter book with the same degrading crap that is in most every other book or tv show? Read for the Magic and the Wonder...body fluids are not for me...Harry Potter is a rousing adventure and fantasy...the books ARE at our level...it's just many adults feel that to be adult they need to reference adult subjects and take a walk in the ocassional sewer. BS. I submit 'Wizard Of Oz'...not just for kids.

You won't be needing your blood then ?
Can I have it?

Well...Here I go........
Universal studio's is building Hogwarts. Universal has MANY characters on it's rouster...The Blues Brothers, Marilyn Monroe, Shaggy,The Marvel Super Hero's,Ghostbusters and dozens of others. None of them have a real SEXUAL connotation ascribed to them ( Many kids know nothing of Marilyn ). They are simply characters and a family ride with them is no problem. Now we are faced with something a little different.
Living here in Orlando Florida I have dozens of Gay friends, bosses and co-workers. So please don't call me a bigot ...But.....
I agree with Mystician that pushing this to the forefront is a mistake.
Just my 2 cents.
With all the brotherly love a straight guy can muster
Dave

"We cast spells, we raise hell, we're tinkerbells... get used to it!"

In response to any objecting to this sort of thing being in a children's book (and granted, it's a small number here making such an objection), it's not actually "in" the Potter books. Dumbledore is never outed in the books, nor is he depicted as gay in the books. If parents don't want their kids being shocked by gay characters, they're safe to let them read the Harry Potter series. They, like the rest of the world, could read all seven books and be surprised to learn that Dumbledore is gay.

I don't have any objection to Dumbledore being gay whatsover. My only objection is that people actually think it's relevant -- it's not. Dumbledore's sexuality is not in the books because it has no bearing on the story, and really has no more bearing on his character than if we learned that McGonagall is straight.

As a point of literary theory ... whether J.K. Rowling thinks Dumbledore is gay may be immaterial. It's not in the books, and the books have a life of their own once they're written and published. Rowling may think of a character as gay ... but the works aren't her own anymore. Every book exists in the minds of the readers, and if the readers think of Dumbledore as straight, well, that's up to the readers. If the readers think of Sirius Black as gay, that also is up to the readers. Ditto for other characters whose sexuality is undefined: McGonagall, Neville Longbottom, Snape, etc.

The beauty of literature is that the stories, the places, and the characters don't exist on the page and don't exist in the author's intentions -- they exist in the minds of the readers. If you're reading a book, that book becomes YOURS, and the way you read it differs from the way your next-door-neighbour reads it, and from the way their cousin reads it, and from the way the author envisioned it.

In that sense, it really doesn't matter if J.K. Rowling says Dumbledore is gay. But if it's an important character point to an individual reader, well, that's fantastic. If you'd prefer not to be concerned about a character's sexuality, that's fine too.

Personally, I may re-read some of the books and look for homoerotic overtones in the relationship between Dumbledore and Snape ... and it's my choice to do so. If J.K. Rowling says there was never any romantic interest on either's part, good for her. Doesn't stop me from reading it that way ... and it introduces a dynamic to their relationship that I'd never considered before.

Naahh, Snape was in love with Lilly, remember?
However, I think Gilderoy Lockhart would be a good character to play with.
Maybe that's why DD hired him, I'm sure DD knew he was a fraud. lol

Rowling might disagree with you on the works not being her own anymore:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/1......-kidding
"J.K. Rowling on Dumbledore Revelation: "He is My Character""
(I'm just sayin' - she gets really possessive..)

It isn't hard to believe that she kept such a fact out of the books because it was after all "intended" for children, (though many of us adult enjoyed the books every bit as much). The main problem I have with it is that it doesn't feel like the Dumbledore thing was intended from the beginning. It feels like the whole "I am your father" statement from Darth Vader. "But Obi Wan, you said Darth betrayed and murdered my father?". "Well Luke, it all depends on your perspective." Uh-huh.

It did feel to me Like Rowling did it just to do it. One more shameless plug for her constant plea of tolerance (a good plea mind you) and perhaps a final jab at the right wing which certainly continue to make her life a living hell. It just irks me from a literary stand-point.

On the other hand, I don't feel that homosexuality can't be discussed with kids. If you don't want to talk about sex itself, fine. Just tell them that sometimes men and women love each other like mommies and daddies, but no, they don't have babies and it will be obvious why later. If they can understand a male/female relationship without the subject of sex coming up, I don't see why male/male or female/female relationships can't be discussed as well. After all, homosexuality isn't just about sex, it's about love too. Whatever moral stance you decide to take on it with your children is another matter, I'm just saying it can be discussed.

Jerico

I understand being possessive.

If I were to spend countless hours of imagining and creativity,
innovating a new magical effect, more hours in scripting and editing,
and yet more days, maybe months in practice and rehearsal,
then I see an amateur magician at a local club meeting
try to perform my routine word for word,
you're dang right I'd be possessive.

(And this has happened in my magical experience!)

Imagine spending over a decade of your life on a series of books,
well, I'd feel I owned the intellectual property as well.

She needs only share her ownership now with Warner Bros,
sort of mom and dad in the Harry Potter family of books/films/products.

Magically,
Walt

Sure, but in my reading of it, he might only be in love with her for being nice to him ... but he later realized that his true feelings were for Harry's father, and his denial of his own sexuality is one of the reasons he hates Harry.

He was certainly gayer in the movies than in the books!



She and J.D. Salinger can get together and commiserate. I disagree with both of them!

I understand your point, but I think we're talking about two different things. If someone takes Rowling's characters and writes their own books, that's more along the lines of what you're talking about.

But what I'm talking about is reader interpretation, which is more along the lines of spectator response to magic. I'm not sure there's really a magical equivalent of what I'm talking about -- because the existence of a book in a reader's head is something unique to literature, and one of the things that makes books such a wonderful medium. But I'll take a stab at magical equivalents:

1) You do a C&B routine that ends with a production of four miniature skulls. (I only say skulls to make it relevant to this particular forum! ) Some viewers are amazed by the final production; others are amazed by the appearance and disappearance of the little balls. (Or eyeballs, let's say.) Others, who know a little bit about magic, enjoy your skill with sleights.

Would you want to tell them they should only appreciate the parts of the routine you want them to appreciate?

Not exactly the same thing, but you get my point.

2) Vernon's C&B routine appears in a magic text. You rehearse the routine, and decide to eliminate phase 4, where the balls appear under the same cup. Should Vernon be upset?

3) The one sleight, you use a personal favourite.


Again, 2 and 3 are also not quite the same thing, but I'm sure you see what I'm getting at.

Literature is somewhat different. As I said, the stories in a book exist in a reader's head. A writer can describe someone as having chubby cheeks and brown hair ... but there are a lot of people with chubby cheeks and brown hair, and they look very different. If you get an image of that person in your head, and you like that image, but it looks different from the image in the author's head, so be it. And if an author writes a series of books, never says a character was gay in the books, and then after the series is complete says, "by the way, that character was gay", have you read the books wrong if you never saw him as gay? Of course not. And if you choose to see a character as gay or straight, that's fine. The writer just has a different interpretation.

Now, if film 6 is being made and the producers decide that Dumbledore and McGonagall should get it on, Rowling should object. That's a violation of moral rights ("moral rights" being a legal term), which she undoubtedly holds, unless she or her agent had their heads up their butts when they signed the contracts, because no author or agent in their right mind waives moral rights in a book contract.

That's where the "intellectual rights" you refer to come into play. She owns intellectual rights to her work. But she doesn't own the imaginations of her readers, and shouldn't tell them that they have to read her books one way, and one way only. If she wants to do that (and I don't know that she does) she should be writing movie scripts (and directing the films), and not books.