The Latest--and Last --Harry Potter...

I don't know why Rowling left Dumbledore's gayness out of the books. If it was a conscious decision, which it likely was, it was surely because Rowling wanted her fans to focus on the book itself and not get hung up on a stupid side issue, be turned off or prevented from enjoying the books because of an inconsequential detail in the grand scheme of the overall story. Most stories survive without revealing the color of the bathroom tile, either.

Was it to protect initial sales and stir up controversy later? Highly likely on the former, not so much the latter. People stir up controversy when they don't have anything else going for them. Rowling, in terms of popularity and cultural impact, is this century's Shakespeare. A publicity stunt like this is hardly necessary for someone whose phone never stops ringing.

Was this a publicity stunt? Considering the forum and the way the subject was broached, Rowling's enormous personal fortune, the ease with which she gets GOOD publicity whenever she wants, etc., there's little to no evidence to support that.

Did she do this to get the miniscule worldwide "slash" community all hot and bothered? Since most people don't even know what slash is, let alone read it, and most authors and publishers consider fan-fic to be one step shy of copyright infringement, I doubt that too.

Did she do this to get people to re-read her books to seek out gay content? Since in order to "re-read" something you need to have read it in the first place, getting people to re-read a book they've already bought doesn't strike me as much of a particularly lucrative sales booster.

Will this increase her readership in the gay community? Maybe. But since the books are already are quite popular in that demographic, as some of the core themes in the books involve independence and tolerance, I doubt that one too.

Will it change people's perspective on the books? Sure, a few. I honestly don't see how that would be a big plus for Rowling in the bottom-line sense. If anything, it would hurt future sales, since many parents will now likely forbid their children from becoming first-time readers of the Harry Potter books.

You're right - my speculation is no better than yours or anyone elses. That's all anyone around here does about any subject - speculate. I hate to disappoint you, but my speculation, in this case, at least makes more realistic sense than yours.

 

Anything is possible.

 

I've never read any of the Potter books, but my understanding from those who do, is that character involvement is one of the big draws of the story. It would not make sense for the author to be less involved with her own characters than her readers. It just does not work that way. For many authors, their characters take on lives of their own. Being "aware" of what she is doing is a large part of being a good author, btw. Good writers are calculating - it comes with the territory.

[ October 22, 2007, 18:16: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I’m not sure I get your point, Chandos. Yes, character involvement is important, and yes, it wouldn’t make sense for her to be less involved than her readers with her characters, but I don’t see what that has to do with keeping Dumbledore’s sexuality a secret until now.

All I’m saying is that I don’t know why she would have decided to make Dumbledore gay given that nothing in the books suggested that was the case. I agree that it should make no difference whether someone is gay or not. However, in the case of a fictional character, if the author decides that a character is gay, then she presumably has a reason for doing so; I don’t know what the purpose is of making such a decision and then not having that be part of the character development.

Anyway, I think I’ve pretty much beaten this to death, so I’ll shut up now.

 

Let me ask you this then, Splunge: are you equally bothered that Rowling didn't go to great lengths to make sure her readers knew that Sirius Black was straight? Or the Weasely brothers? McGonical? If Rowling decided ahead of time that they were all straight, shouldn't she make a point of that as well?

If being gay or straight doesn't really matter, she shouldn't have to provide a reason. And if his romantic life, by whatever distant extension, doesn't impact the story at all, then why need it be mentioned in a story where he's a supporting character? In this case, his being gay is as insignificant a detail as his being of Scottish descent (or whatever, I don't know his ancestry). If his being gay was the reason he felt X way about Y situation, which was in turn the catalyst for the advice he gave Harry about Z conflict, that lead to G279-b outcome that Harry was involved in, I'd agree with you. I just don't see a need to bring it up, and it's certainly the writers privilege to leave such a piece of information out of the soup.

You don't have to shut up, this is actually an interesting conversation. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "publicity stunt" idea. Please, continue if you're still interested.

 

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.

I never said that being gay doesn’t matter; I said it shouldn’t matter. If it truly didn’t matter, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now, there wouldn’t be topics related to homosexuality in the Alleys, there would be no need for the gay rights movement – need I go on?

If, in fact, Dumbledore was straight, do you think her announcing that fact would have received one bit of attention? Of course not. Because the reality of today’s world, whether you care to admit it or not, is that people make a subconscious assumption that other people are heterosexual in the absence of evidence to the contrary; this doesn’t necessarily mean that people care one way or the other (although some do), nor does it mean that the assumption is forefront in their minds, but it’s there nonetheless. And that is why it doesn’t bother me that Rowling made no effort to disclose that other characters in the series were straight – the subconscious assumption, particularly in a series aimed towards a younger audience, is that they are heterosexual to begin with.

The fact that Dumbledore’s sexuality has nothing to do with the storyline is exactly correct. So why make him gay? Why not make him straight? Or asexual? Or a sadomasochist? Or better yet, don’t make him anything if it has nothing to do with the story or the character. If an author makes an explicit decision to assign a certain characteristic to one of the characters, then why not use that in the story? Otherwise, what’s the point of making that decision in the first place?

To me, the only way I could agree with you is for me to think that Dumbledore’s personality is independent of Rowling’s influence. Which would be true if Dumbledore was a real person. But given that he’s just a figment of her imagination, she gets to make conscious decisions as to who and what he is. If she makes a conscious decision to have him be gay, or tall, or have a long beard and glasses, she presumably has her reasons for doing so in the context of the story, and I fail to see why those characteristics should not be disclosed in some manner in that story. Yes, I realize that, sometimes, characters can take on a life of their own, but that usually happens because of the way the character is developed in the story, and the author slaps his/her head, and says “Ohmigod, Joe is gay/autistic/Mexican!”. But again, the story here doesn’t lead one to that revelation.

As for the “publicity stunt” – I think she saw an opportunity to grab some more attention, and she got it (“gasps and applause”). She’ll now be congratulated for having the courage to make Dumbledore gay (even though that fact had no bearing whatsoever on the story), and she’ll be able to pat herself lightly on the back for being so progressive. (OK, that probably comes across as making her out to be more manipulative than I intended, but still…)

Bah, I’m really spending too much time on this. Not that it isn’t interesting, but I really don’t have the time for it. I think that’s why I said I’ll shut up.

 

2 things, and then I'll shut up myself (edit: though please forgive the length, I do find this whole affair fascinating ). I see two key differences in the way you've perceived this event and my perception of it.

This, by definition, was not an announcement. It was a revelation. World of difference.

She did not agree to this Q&A in order to out her character. It came up in the course of the questioning. It is clear - again, to me, based on the context, the forum, Rowling's past dealings in the media and toward her fans, and everything I learned with my marketing education - that she saw no reason to avoid being forthcoming about this detail, given fan speculation up until now, that the series has ended, and that she's become much more forthcoming about ALL aspects of the HP universe now that there's no more story to spoil. That people were shocked by what she said does NOT mean she said so to be shocking. That she revealed this in front of an audience does NOT mean she went in front of an audience to reveal it.

This, to me, irrefutably separates this from what most would consider a publicity stunt. If all she wanted was to grab attention, as you keep insisting, she'd have started (or ended) the evening by saying "I'd like to make an announcement" or "I have something I'd like to share" or "some of you have been waiting a long time to hear this, so here goes..." or whatever. She did none of that.

Because that was a part of Dumbledore's story, not Harry's. She made him gay because it had an impact on his storyline, as she explained in the Q&A ("his great tragedy."). Dumbledore's alone, not Harry's - and the Harry Potter books are Harry's story. She developed a rich backstory for the character, like any good author would, as a way of knowing him, and knowing how he'd react to certain situations. It's a hallmark of good character development. George Lucas - and I'm loathe to use the High King Dork as an example - invented entire planets and societies in the Star Wars universe that only had mere mentions in the movies (even the original trilogy). Like the Bothans, for example. Why mention the Bothans at all if they never make an appearance in the movies? Because it enriches the story. Why did he make Chewbacca a slave and Han Solo a former Imperial officer, when neither is mentioned or even HINTED at in the movies? Again - good character development.

Some aspects of Dumbledore's backstory are relevant to the Harry Potter story, some aren't. This aspect was not one of them. Some authors (bad ones) bog down a story with an abundance of details about second-tier characters to fill pages. Good ones choose to keep the focus on the protagonist. And again - part of Dumbledore's charm is his wisdom and kindliness combined with his mystery. That there were no references or indications that he was gay is hardly surprising, if you know any gay people (and I know many). Like most gay people, he wasn't flamboyant or otherwise outwardly telegraphing his sexuality. So who would notice? Some men go their entire lives hiding their sexuality only to come out, to everyone's surprise, much later in life. Happens every day.

I'd bet a ball that if Rowling decides to pen a series of Dumbledore origin books, which she says isn't likely, she'll probably cover all aspects of his life in excruciating detail. She'd almost have to, now. So controversy or not, I see no alterior motive whatsoever in her omitting Dumbledore's homosexuality. The fact is, there was no real reason to include it, let alone a good reason.

That's my take - right or wrong, your guess is certainly as good as mine.

Ok, now I'm done.

[ October 22, 2007, 23:59: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Two quick points (addressing DR’s post), and then I think that’s it for me.

Actually, I’m willing to accept that this may not have been pre-arranged, but I agree with Tal’s comment that she was at least waiting for an opportunity to bring it up. Like Tal, I find it hard to believe that she is so naive as to think that a comment like that would cause no stir whatsoever. It may not have been a pre-set publicity stunt, but it was certainly opportunistic.

DR, as to your second point that Dumbledore’s sexuality has nothing to do with Harry’s storyline, that’s true. But neither does the appearance of the Weasley’s kitchen, or the colour of the twins’ hair, or what kind of clothes McGonagall wore, or what the weather is like. As Tal said in a previous post, if you’re going to remove every detail not directly related to Harry, then you’re going to turn a seven-novel series into a 20 page short story. It all comes down to character development and setting an atmosphere. And personally, I think revealing that Dumbledore was gay would have made him a much more interesting character than knowing he had grey hair. But that, of course, would have hurt sales (as you yourself admitted in your first post), and she knew it, so she decided to hold off until the series was done and most of the sales made.

 

Yeah Tal, that's not a "pot/kettle" statement at all. I seem to remember something about "bringing beating dead horses to a whole new level..." but I can't think of who might have said that.

Nor can I convince you (of anything, on any subject, it seems, since you're never wrong) that J. K. Rowling's "PR machine" didn't talk her into making an announcement solely for the benefit of the HP fanfic community - a very small chunk of her overall fanbase, who obviously already have and already will buy her books no matter what - and to the detriment of future sales and risking the alienation and outrage of millions of her current and potential fans, most of whom are kids (and more importantly, their parents). As if any PR department in their right mind, especially Rowlings - and I assure you, she has the best people working for her - would consider that a smart move. If I were Rowling I'd fire them for such a stupid, inflammatory tabloid tactic. Of course this all could have been arranged, and I fully admit it's possible and agree. But it's just not very likely. For someone like Rowling, it would hardly be necessary - she's already at the top of her game, by far.

I would certainly agree that this would be a case of "clever marketing" if it didn't involve two incompatible (in many people's eyes) elements: homosexuality and children's literature. I don't see how this nets a positive result for her. Her books will be banned en masse from some schools, some stores will take them off the shelves, and she'll receive millions of angry letters from parents everywhere for the deception. Many will love her for this, but I don't see them outnumbering those who are outraged, especially those who already had a bone to pick with HP. I can see the bible-belt book burnings now. And if Rowling's "PR Machine" aren't on high damage-control alert right now, I'd be shocked. She's finally given the morality police some ammunition they can actually use, since the "evil devil magic" angle was never very effective.

Let me break this down: she's a children's author. Most parents, even non-homophobic ones, will now be uncomfortable with her books. This was a dumb move, PR wise. I personally commend her for creating a prominent, heroic gay character. And furthermore, revealing it after the story is ended actually is a boon for the gay community, since it demonstrates that being good, loving, noble, heroic, mentoring AND gay aren't mutually exclusive. Dumbledore was judged on his merits first, not his sexual preference - the envy of all closet gays everywhere. But she did this on her own, and for her own reasons. Her PR Machine is concerned about one thing alone: the bottom line. Turning off any segment of your fan base hurts that bottom line. And when your fan base is mostly kids, that's a huge segment. I'm sorry you can't see that. If they didn't try to talk her out of revealing it, then they should have (from a marketing standpoint, that is).

That is all just my opinion, worth no more or no less than anyone's, but again, to me, it sounds far more realistic than yours (but of course, I'm wrong, so dismiss it - quick! Before someone sees). To say she did this - or anything - for the "slash kiddies" is like saying the biggest rock band in the world decided to piss off and shock most of their fans in order to pander to their cover bands. If that sounds like a likely scenario to you...well, whatever.

If you actually sounded like you knew what you were talking about, I'd probably agree with some of your premises. But you don't. I wholeheartedly (and often quietly) agree with you on many MANY subjects, believe it or not, but this is one where I don't. The fact is, you have no evidence that she DID do this as a PR stunt either. I think you're giving her far too little credit. That she laughed "oh, the fan fiction!" after the crowd reacted doesn't mean she did it for their benefit. It just means she knew they'd buzz about it.

Despite what you obviously think, I'm not disagreeing just to disagree. I got in this discussion in the first place because the reaction - here, in the press, and around the world - is fascinating to me, and I can't honestly believe the hysterics coming from some circles. Not so much from the gay thing, but for the "pr stunt" conspiracy theories which just don't jive with me. I could give a monkey's about the books.

But since you're the king of all things scifi/fantasy and to disagree with you is to defy ironclad fact, and since I'm always wrong about everything and start arguments just to start arguments, just treat this as background noise as well. Evidently my keeping this going with Splunge (whom I think the world of) because it's a fascinating topic and because I was honestly trying to be convinced of his PR stunt angle, is impossible. No, my quest to prove you wrong takes precedence. Evidently I've never been convinced of or changed my opinion about anything by anyone here, ever. I saw gaping, illogical holes in his (and your) reasoning, I responded. How awful of me.

Please don't respond to this, since I already know that you're going to say everything that I've said is wrong. Oh wait, that's your line! My bad.

Edit: @ Splunge,

Thanks for responding.

First paragraph: I definitely agree that she waited to bring it up. Where I disagree is why she chose now. I really don't think it was to catch headlines - that's my only beef with that.

Second paragraph: I think we're essentially agreed. I never said she has to remove every inconsequential detail. I wouldn't want her to. I'm just saying she's under no obligation to reveal what she doesn't feel the need to. I agree with you that it would have made him a more interesting character. But we're adults, and we don't have kids (at least, if memory serves, you don't). I'd be a different ball game if we did. So yes, I do agree that it would have hurt sales. I just happen to think it's only one of several reasons she omitted it. It would have distracted greatly (and pointlessly) the story, and to me, that was her greater motivation.

[ October 23, 2007, 19:06: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Again, I've never read these books, but aren't they mostly for kids? Or a lot of young ones read the Potter books? Maybe not, judging by some of the comments being made here regarding sexual content and "losing" sales. If the books are for kids, then it would make sense that she would not include such content in the story. Usually mature themes are written for mature readers.

All writers, regardless of genre, have the artistic right to be cryptic in character development, to some extent. To that extent it's up to the reader to figure some aspects out for himself regarding development. What a writer choses to reveal, and not to reveal, is part of the craft of writing. Hemingway commented once that only 1/9 of what the writer "knows" is revealed in the story; the rest is like an iceberg in the ocean, never seen.

I'm not sure how Hemingway came up with the 1/9 figure, but I believe that writers determine aspects of development only so far as it moves the story and the characters only to a given point - that's the craft of writing. It seems to me that Rowlings has been pretty effective here in that development. She has obviously given some readers a lot to think about regarding one of her characters, even though I have no idea who the guy is.

 

@ Chandos

Bingo - that nails a large part of what I was trying to say. Thank you. Though you win the coolness prize - I brought up George Lucas, you brought up Hemingway.

 

DR - Hemingway usually trumps.

 

I'm about to get on a plane, and won't post for a few weeks - but thanks to everyone (begrudgingly, everyone ) for a great topic and exchange. This one was a blast. I'm definitely done with this now.

Peace.

 

Argh! Why can’t I stay away?

@ Chandos:

Exactly correct. The books were originally intended for a younger crowd (but matured somewhat as her audience got older, and they do make for a fairly entertaining light read). Which is why it puzzles me that Rowling decided that Dumbledore should be gay. Again, nothing in the story suggested that, so I really don’t see why she felt the need to go there. But her reasons are her own, and since she did decide to go there, it makes sense from a sales standpoint not to reveal that fact given her audience. However, now that the series is finished, and most people who are going to buy the books have already done so, sales won’t suffer drastically by revealing this now. As for what I think her motivations were for doing so, please see my previous posts.

But again, she decided that this fact should be revealed; she just chose to do so outside the story. So I guess she’s no Hemingway.

I’m not going to address DR’s second-last (edit: third-last) post (at least, insofar as it relates to what I’ve said). We have different opinions as to why Rowling decided that Dumbledore should be gay, why she didn’t reveal that during the course of the series, and why she chose to reveal it now. This is just going to go down as one of those “agree to disagree” things. Although since we share the same opinion regarding gay attitudes in general, maybe we’re disagreeing on what we should agree to disagree on. Or something like that.

Edit:

Thank god! Now I can finally put this to rest.

 

Who is?


Edit: Sorry for the typo - it should have been "chooses" not choses (there is no such word).

[edit - yes there is, it's just an archaic legal term that only lawyers like me would know - dmc]

[ October 23, 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

So the argument is that there is no textual evidence to support the claim that the character in question is gay. Am I right? Just an off-handed anouncement that "so and so is gay," which to some readers, seems incomprehensible. Thusly, some readers feel that Rowlings has lost credibility by not having the evidence in her own text to back up her claim. Interesting point. Rowlings may need to spin-off a prequel to clarify her point regarding her character, which she may be planning (only speculation). Again, I'm not that familiar with her stuff or her "outside" comments regarding it.

Failing that, it will fall upon her defenders to find out just how her outside comments really mesh with the internal reality of the story she has crafted. Nevertheless, the writer has taken an "official" stance on her character, but she, or someone familiar with her work and sympathetic with her stance, still has to explain it in some fashion using the text.