I really shouldn't look

[pegkerr]

And I really shouldn't say anything. It does terrible things to my blood pressure. But I've been reading some of the incredible and unbelievably nasty comments that have been posted at various websites in response to the news reports that Rowling said that she always thought Dumbledore to be gay. And some of this is coming from Harry Potter fan sites, rather than general news sites. Holy cow, people.

Your [sic] missing the point. This is a series of books written for children. Sexual preference has no place in it, has nothing to do with it. It is sick that she felt the need to taint such excellent reads and what could of possibly been concidered classics in the future with sex. Rather twisted world we live in, that sexual preference is bled into something like this.

I’m sorry to hear of this. We’ve just started this book with both of our daughters and our little boy (ages 4, 6 and 7) and I am not sure how to explain to them that we’ll have to read something else instead. Why do people have to spoil things for the young and innocent by bringing in unnatural elements to such a wonderful story?

Well JK, you’ve ruined the entire book series for me. Happy? No. How about appalled? Offended? Irate? Yes, any of those emotions would do. This pronouncement, does nothing for the series except to taint what was once a wonderful book series. Discussing Dumbledore’s sexuality, after the series is done, when it has no real influence on the series and bends the imagination of the readers, is just cruel and smacks of a political agenda. Especially since this series caters to youth who don’t need you tainting their idealistic view of adults and the characters in the books they read. I’m tossing our books and movies.. thanks for ruining it..

Kudos to JK Rowling for ruining a perfectly good children’s series. She probably knew that doing this before the series was finished would have hurt sales. I guess it is the same all around the world, you can take the person out of the ghetto but can’t give them class.

i am very dissapointed at Rowling, is not only that homosexuality is not natural and is not right. i think that Dumbledore was a role model for today’s kids, but now she declares that he is gay after selling her last book… it’s not right for the kids who use to think of him as a hero. now i am sure a lot of kids don’t know what to think. my nephews are confused and questioning us about homosexuality and i think it’s dangerous for them and any other kid in the world. and it is unfair that she decided to make the declaration after the last book.. if i had known that there was a gay charachter in a children’s book i would not have bought the book for my nephews and i would not have read it miself. i will not be buying any more books from Rowling. clearly she knew that many people were not going to support this. so she chose to do this after she sold millions of dollars and not before. that is coward, convenient and honestly a little dishonest.

I really don’t like how this was handled by the author. I know they are her characters, but I feel like there is something wrong with creating new details for characters after the fact, that did not appear in any book. I’m not sure what the point is. She risks cheapening the series if she just starts throwing stuff out like that. If it was that important, why didn’t she write it? It seemed like a set-up to me, with a questioner asking if Dumbledore "finds true love." Dumbledore died in the penultimate book, so the question makes no sense. It seems like she’s trying to throw a bone to the gay community for some reason, and the result is now going to be a lot of uncomfortable conversations between parents and their kids. As one of those parents, this felt like an ambush.

Perfect reason to use the books as fireplace fuel.

I am completely disappointed; I wish she wouldn’t have said anything. I don’t know if I will ever be able to read any of the books again or watch the movies. This absolutely ruins it for me.

Yeah, there's more of that. A lot more. JKR is evil, cowardly, cynically opportunistic, in thrall to the evil gay agenda; she had no right to say it; how dare she say such a terrible and disgusting thing about a beloved character; revealing this about Dumbledore makes him exactly as bad as a murderer and a pedophile; kids who read the books and see the movies will be corrupted and ruined for life because of this; the books and movies should be burned . . . on and on.

Nope. I just can't respond to the idiocy. It's too much. Too unreal. Too disgusting and corrosive. Sometimes you just have to step back and simply watch the people making utter fools of themselves, but it's pointless to do much more than to simply shrug the shoulders, roll the eyes, and say, "You're dead wrong." And leave it at that.

The idiots probably wouldn't listen anyway.

Comments

[coyotegoth.livejournal.com]

Who knew Anne Coulter was a book reviewer?

[gina-r-snape.livejournal.com]

LOL, nice one.

Well, of course, it's the end all be all of tragedy as everyone knows that dead gay fictional characters jump out in the night and molest children. Because, you know, all older gay men are really pedophiles.

blah blah blah blah blah blah.

My own issues aside with the way JKR did this, I am glad she did out one of her characters.

[heavenscalyx.livejournal.com]

The idiots don't listen. Pretty much never. These are part of the population, after all, of people who likely couldn't be arsed to help people in, say, New Orleans but will mobilize and raise money in order to make sure that some people who love each other cannot be legally married.

[minnaleigh.livejournal.com]

Every time I see those comments, I want to say, "If sexual preference has no place in a children's book, why aren't you outraged by the pages upon pages about heterosexual dating and marriage. Heterosexuality was shoved in the readers' faces constantly throughout the entire series." But it would be futile, I'm afraid.

[avengangle.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, right on, seconded, thank you. :)

(I agree. A lot.)

[pameladean]

At least the audience she actually spoke to burst into applause.

P.

[pinkfinity.livejournal.com]

In a way, I'm glad the homophobes are leaving the fandom because they clearly never learned a single lesson about tolerance when they read the books. We haven't had much of aproblem on FA because most of the homophobes probably left back in 04 when we refused to ban or mandate warnings on slash, even the G and PG stuff. But yes, I have also read some horrible comments on other sites but what would you expect on sites where the policy, until last month, was that gay characters were not in the spirit of the books?

[quesrah.livejournal.com]

The only part I agree with is

"I know they are her characters, but I feel like there is something wrong with creating new details for characters after the fact, that did not appear in any book. I’m not sure what the point is. She risks cheapening the series if she just starts throwing stuff out like that."

I'm so tired of being thrown random tidbits of information. It just feels like she's trying to control the series without having to write anything else. Don't TELL me Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, SHOW me the story of Dumbledore's love for his friend and the pain of his betrayal.

[knitmeapony.livejournal.com]

I agree with Neil on that point: http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2007/10/flowers-of-romance.html

[kiwiria.livejournal.com]

I totally agree. It takes the 'rule' of "show, don't tell" and spits on it.

As Peg knows I really couldn't care less about Dumbledore's sexuality, but like you I'm so tired of these random tidbits from interviews. If it's that important put it in the book.

That said, I've since the read that the fact came out because a script writer wanted to mention Dumbledore's (female) love interest in the 6th movie, and Rowling scribbled "Dumbledore is gay" across the page, so it's not like it was just something she randomly uttered at an interview. That made me feel slightly better about it.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

As Peg knows I really couldn't care less about Dumbledore's sexuality, but like you I'm so tired of these random tidbits from interviews.

These random tidbits? Or is it simply this random tidbit? People have been eager to hear about the subsequent lives of Harry, Ron, Neville, Hagrid, but suddenly when she acknowledges this fact (which she said yesterday that she knew before the first book was even published, and so it informed her writing throughout the series) in response to a direct question, suddenly people are acting as if she crapped in their living room or something. I'm not convinced that people are saying things like this simply because they are somehow tired of J.K. Rowling answering questions that she has been asked. They are saying it because they don't like her answer to this particular question.

If it's that important put it in the book.

She did put it in the book--subtly. Or at least it's there if you look carefully. It's there in what Xenophilius says about Dumbledore and Grindelwald at the wedding. It's cleverly insinuated in Rita Skeeter's article. It's there in what Dumbledore tells Harry about his relationship with Grindelwald. It underlies, perhaps, the reasons why he gave Remus Lupin a chance and a job when no one else would, and why he understood and was sympathetic to Snape. It does add a lot to Dumbledore's characterization.

[lenora-rose.livejournal.com]

I can't speak for kiwiria, but right after reading the book I was mildly curious about the tidbits in her very first interviews - but only because some of them were more interesting than the things she did put into the dreadful epilogue. And since, I've grown less interested week by week. If anything, this one is considerably more interesting than anything she's said since the week after the release of Deathly Hallows, because it's the first thing she's brought up that is actually reflected within the text, if very circumspectly, and is therefore relevant to the text.

(I'm in the camp that says, this is a great step, I'm glad she had it in mind all along, and it influenced how she wrote the character. Next time write an overtly gay character.)

[kiwiria.livejournal.com]

These random tidbits - plural. It's bothered me for quite awhile that she hands out 'canon' in interviews.

The subsequent lives of the characters is different (at least to me), as that's stuff that takes place after the books are done and she therefore had no chance to put in the books.

[kiwiria.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to add that this of course also means that if Dumbledore wasn't dead I'd be fine with the information, because it would be part of his 'subsequent life'.

[elfundeb.livejournal.com]

As a general matter, I'm with you as far as JKR's extracanonical comments are concerned. I was annoyed, for example, by JKR's need to explain Sirius' character on her website, or her ever-changing views on certain points, like Ron's job.

This was different, though, because the revelation that Dumbledore was gay, to my mind, fits seamlessly with canon. JKR did write him as a gay character, and I can embrace this revelation, unlike so many others.

Unfortunately, though, it seems to mean that in the WW gays are still more or less in the closet, and that saddens me.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

And really, I think she did just that. I actually did think Dunbledore and Grindelwald had fallen in love - whether sexually or platonically is sort of irrelevant, but there's a clear infatuation going on there. To me, telling us that Dumbledore is gay is not at all inconsistent with the story but is belaboring the point. I can forgive her, though, because she kept that heavy-handed telling out of the story, which is the important thing.

[sternel.livejournal.com]

But the blood & gore, torture, murders, attempts at genocide, and fascism -- those are OK.

Let them go ahead and flap their mouths. It's like the old Irish prayer asking the Lord to turn the ankles of one's enemies, so you will know them by their limp.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

It's like the old Irish prayer asking the Lord to turn the ankles of one's enemies, so you will know them by their limp.

Ha. Nice.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Uh...as you know, I don't read the books. But am I understanding this correctly: While some people have thought this was implied in the books, none of it is explicit, and JKR is simply explaining the way she viewed the parts of the characters' lives that weren't shown in the books? And people are refusing to read the books to their children because of something that was in the author's mind but not on the page? If so, you probably had best not tell me, as it will make my head explode.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

If so, you probably had best not tell me, as it will make my head explode. Well, I'm picking up bits of my brain from the carpet right now!

[aeditimi.livejournal.com]

Yeah, just plug your ears (to keep your brainy bits in).

[eal.livejournal.com]

Sigh. I wish I could say this surprises me, but it doesn't.

You haven't had real fun until you've been threatened to the point that I no longer went out in the town I was teaching by myself.

Why? I taught The Laramie Project. In a college classroom.

Book burners do not surprise me at all. Sad that.

[peacockharpy.livejournal.com]

...it’s not right for the kids who use to think of him as a hero.

And here I thought Dumbledore's pedestal had been pretty well smashed to bits in Deathly Hallows -- and that without knowing he was gay.

It just goes to show these people do not actually read. They're too busy calculating every angle of the agendas (theirs and the author's) to actually enjoy a story for its own sake.

[pennswoods.livejournal.com]

Where the hell are these people coming from? What HP fansites do they inhabit?

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

The Leaky Cauldron has over 3,000 comments on the newstory, and counting.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Another thing that strikes me: These people never suspected that Dumbledore is gay; he seemed just like anyone else, a regular guy (within the context of that universe). The lesson they should take away is that GLBT people are just like anyone else, regular folks. But nooooooooo.

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[cryptaknight.livejournal.com]

I don't get comments like, "Now we'll have to read something else." Why? It's not like Harry walks in on Dumbledore and Grindlewald getting down and dirty. The books are the same as they ever were. It's not like JKR went back and inserted a bunch of stuff into the books to make them more gay. Most fans have been seeing subtext in the books forever. If parents were able to read to kids before without picking up subtext, then why stop reading now. I mean, it's a damn shame that they would feel they can't read books with textual homosexuality to kids, but HP doesn't even fall into that category.

[dreamcoat-mom.livejournal.com]

Initially, I had mixed feelings about JKR's revelation, specifically because I feared that type of reaction. As a small-town librarian who has seen these books change lives firsthand, I didn't want one more excuse for ignorant parents to rip it from their children's fingers. And never mind the parents... in the current social climate (at least here in the rural areas) many kids are already conditioned enough to stay away from the story on their own, based on what really is just a character factoid.

But in the end, it is Jo's story to tell, and all she did was offer clarification following a point blank question. To me, it makes the story that much richer, but I just knew that the public would act like this, because I'm surrounded by that kind of thinking every single day, and it makes me want to scream with frustration. You're right, Peg, it's impossible to respond on any kind of reasonable level, because the hatred is so visceral, and still such a vast juggernaut. I pray that by the time my children are raising their own, that kind of thinking will no longer be considered "moral," but rather morally reprehensible--but for now, the idiots won't listen.

[aeditimi.livejournal.com]

I particularly like the "homosexuality is unnatural" comments. Because it's so much less natural than, say, MAGIC?

And how does a comment by an author make the reading material itself unfit for future readers? It's not like she's going to go back into the books and write in some steamy Albus/Gelhert porn, although, gods, I wish she would ;) It's the same damn book, idiots.

As I said in my journal, I think she could have made a better choice for gay characters, but they are her characters and if she's really in denial and thinks Sirius is straight, well then he fooled his mother and his creator with those biker babe posters.

Okay, so I'm the nerdy pro gay agenda fan who wishes all the characters were at least bi.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

If sexual preference has no place in the books, then what the hell were Harry and Ginny doing all those times hanging out under the tree? How did Arthur and Molly produce all those children? Why did Tonks' Patronus change? It's probably OK, though, because anyone who views Dumbledore as an unproblematic role model after book 7 clearly isn't reading the books anyway.

(I actually would still consider him a role model, as someone who has acknowledged his own flaws, repented and done his best to repair any damage he's caused, chosen the lesser of evils when there was no wholly good solution, and still mourns the things he couldn't repair. Oh, and managed to overcome the bedazzlement of infatuation to see the real evil in the one he once loved. But none of that is relevant to his sex life, really.)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

If sexual preference has no place in the books, then what the hell were Harry and Ginny doing all those times hanging out under the tree? How did Arthur and Molly produce all those children? Why did Tonks' Patronus change? Yes, exactly. That's what makes me so angry. People who talk disparagingly about gays "rubbing people's faces in their deviant lifestyle," saying it's okay to be gay as long as they don't flaunt it, seem to have no awareness of how heteronormativity immbues our culture every day: it's in the pictures of family that are displayed on desks. It's in the custom of wearing wedding rings. It's casual mentions of "my husband" or "my wife" in everyday conversations. Like fish who swim through water without even realizing the water is there.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

My favorite illiustration of this is in Fred Small's song Annie.

(I'd argue the wedding rings because same-sex couples can choose to wear them too and many do even in areas where their marriage can't be legalized. But I agree entirely with your bigger point.)

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

I'd argue the wedding rings because same-sex couples can choose to wear them too

Yes, that's certainly true. In fact, the girls and I went to the wedding of a same-sex couple just this past weekend, and they were proudly showing off their matching wedding rings.