How did I never make this connection? Brilliant.

(Source: letterstomrpotter)

rereadingharry:

[Source].

I’m bringing this post back because it has bearing on the ever-relevant discussion on the Outing of Dumbledore. As I understand it, these are the questions of one (it seems like one) reporter among the many who questioned her at this press conference; she composes her answers spontaneously. 

This exchange tells me that, as far as she is concerned, she *did* reveal Dumbledore’s homosexuality in the books (in this quotation she expands on that slightly).

This is my reading of it: She is first asked why she didn’t “write about it in the book when [she] started.” The funny thing here is that the reporter might have meant Deathly Hallows specifically, but when Jo talks about ‘the Book’ without being more specific, she means the whole series, all seven, so she answered as if the reporter was speaking the same way. So, the reporter (or another reporter — as I said, it seems like the same one) clarifies the question: why not later? And Jo has to ask for a further clarification, because it doesn’t make sense to her, she did reveal it, after all. This is clear in her answer: “the end comes at the end”; that is, the reveal of Dumbledore’s orientation was part of the conclusion to the story, it came at the very end. She can’t answer the question “why didn’t you” because she feels did. She goes on to say, “it’s very clear in the book […] a sensitive adult reader may well understand that it was an infatuation.” That’s so key — she trusts her adult readers to sense it, to sense that it was more than friendship between them, because that’s how she wrote it..

In JKR’s answers here, Dumbledore’s homosexuality and his infatuation with Grindelwald are inextricable. I actually think that in Dumbledore’s mind, it may not be (more thoughts on that here). This reporter keeps asking her, we keep asking her, “Why didn’t you tell us?” and her answer is, “I couldn’t tell you, that’s not how it works: I showed you.” Because, of course, that’s the task of writing: show, don’t tell.

expectomotherfuckingpatronum:

rereadingharry:

darklorddiscount:

rereadingharry:

athomewithsherlock:

the-galway-girl:

She had the ability to influence across generations, and yet she never took the crucial step of putting even one openly gay couple in her books.

THANK YOU.

Everyone is always like oh isnt it so NICE that dumbledore was gay and in love with that one dude

isnt that so NICE its so LOVELY that she included a gay character

But freaking THINK ABOUT IT. The books never flat out STATED that Dumbles is a homo.

JK could have changed the world by writing this incredibly inspiring and influential book series and including one or two openly gay characters, in a relationship that is fully and completely endorsed by all the characters.

BUT NO.

That is the only thing that I will ever hate about the Harry Potter series.

Yes, the only thing. Yet, it’s this conflicted love-hate, because I love that part of the story — that Grindelwald-Dumbledore part of the story, and the broken nose, and the broken self-trust — and I’m grateful that she outed him eventually but, yes, I think the impact would have been very different if his orientation had been overtly stated in the text.

Okay, well, this makes me kinda eehh. YES I fully support gay rights, and YES I think its brilliant that Dumbledore is gay. But why is it such a big deal that it was written specifically in the book? Saying that you hate the series because it doesn’t promote a value that you believe is completely ridiculous. There are plenty of influential novels that have no mention of homosexuality; does that mean that they are bad books, or that the author did something wrong? JK Rowling subtly made a huge point by saying that love was powerful, no matter if it was platonic, homosexual, heterosexual, what have you. Anyways, I feel like Dumbledore was a very private man, and wouldn’t have made a big deal of flaunting his sexuality in the first place. If JK didn’t think of any of the main characters being overtly gay, that’s fine, it’s her book. That doesn’t mean she can’t advocate for gay rights outside of her novels.

Sorry, ranting. 

First, no one is saying that they hate the series because of this. At least, that’s not what I was saying. Hate is far from what I feel for the series.

Nor am I saying that it fails to support my views and is therefore bad. I believe in its message, I fully do.

It’s unfortunately true that plenty of influential novels don’t have gay characters — that’s the whole point — while it doesn’t matter much to heterosexual people (allies and slashers excepted, of course), queer folk like myself lament this absence, suffer this absence.

In the case of Potter, the books are about the power of love and the importance of equality among humans/magical beings; however, JKR neglected to overtly include a queer character or an instance of same-sex romantic love. What message does that send about the validity of that love or the value of such a person? Does it mean that she doesn’t think it’s important to demonstrate that validity or that value? One can argue that it simply sends no message, but then really it is a message of nonexistence — you don’t exist.

Dumbledore’s orientation should have sent a clear message: Brave and brilliant men, too, can love other men. Fans — young readers and old readers — would have received this as an affirmation from an author they admired, from a story they were invested in. The resulting controversy would have reached non-fans. Would people (fans and non-fans alike) have been swayed away from homophobia? I don’t know; I’m not of such a mind. When he was outed posthumously, post-series, there was indeed a controversy, there was a message, but both were muddled — too many people said she did it for publicity, or for the sake of controversy, or on a whim (would they have said this if she had outed him in canon? Perhaps, but their position would be harder to defend). Too many had to ask, why not sooner? If you support queer people, why did you withhold your support until it was, in a sense, too late? Why? Too many people will insist his orientation is technically not canon. Depending on your definition of canon, they’re right (some people include ‘word of god’ as canon, but this isn’t common academic practice). So, in a sense, I feel constantly that I must defend his sexuality, and her decision to cloak it, or the reverse… or what? What’s my moral duty here, to myself, to JKR, to queer politics, to literature, to Dumbledore?

When JKR outed Dumbledore I was happy about it — I literally ran out into the street and cheered. She is definitely, in her way, advocating gay rights and I’m thrilled about it — we shouldn’t ignore the fact that she did, ultimately, speak out for us in a big way. She still, perhaps, changed lives — at least one person came out because of that interview in Carnegie Hall — but, perhaps, fewer lives, or less change. It’s not really quantifiable. But the experience is so different. Rather than a blessing, it is a mixed blessing. He is gay, but invisibly so, like myself. He is gay, but I must defend his sexuality, the way I must frequently defend my own.

I feel like if JK had written Dumbledore as overtly gay, though, that it would have ruined his character. I don’t mean that his gayness would have ruined it, because clearly it didn’t. But it would have taken away from Dumbledore as a character if he had any overt love interest, male or female. Dumbledore is a private and secretive character. Even with what is revealed about him in DH, very little is known about him. Revealing something so private so openly would have been detrimental to Dumbledore’s characterization. 

In a novel, stating a character’s sexual orientation for the sake of stating a character’s sexual orientation should not come before truthfulness to that character’s personality. In fact, doesn’t that put the gay rights movement behind where it is now? Aren’t people themselves first and their orientations second? 

There isn’t much weight put on Dumbledore being gay because there shouldn’t be much weight put on Dumbledore being gay, just as it isn’t overtly stated that McGonagall is straight (even though she is). It is secondary to the character. To understand Dumbledore, you have to understand subtext, and honestly, including this as subtext gives Harry Potter more depth than it might have had otherwise.

I actually agree with the above statement 99.99%. It was definitely not in Dumbledore’s nature to be openly gay (though the persona he presented would make one thing otherwise, his hidden self is not open about anything). However, in the chapter “King’s Cross” he reveals all. It’s very likely that Harry actually, from that conversation, gleaned the truth of Dumbledore’s feelings for Grindelwald (as did many, in JKR’s words, “sensitive” readers, though if she had not outed Dumbledore we would have been for all time dismissed as delusional slash shippers #bitter). But this doesn’t qualify as overt, which is why so many people were bemused and skeptical when she outed him in Carnegie Hall. When we’re talking about this from a literary standpoint, there is no problem with that — in fact, it’s part of a grand tradition of subtextual queerness. But that tradition isn’t necessarily a helpful one at this point. Literature does not exist in a vacuum.

So, in this chapter, when he reveals all, the addition or alteration of a couple words would have made all the difference. Here is the passage I am thinking of:

“Grindelwald. You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindelwald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution.

“Oh, I had a few scruples. I assuaged my conscience with empty words. It would all be for the greater good, and any harm done would be repaid a hundredfold in benefits for wizards. Did I know in my heart of hearts what Gellert Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes.”

Here she could have added something like: “I was too infatuated with him, and with our plans,” or, “Such are the dangers of obsessive love … but do not think I excuse myself, Harry,” or, “My mind was filled with competing ideas, with the possibilities he presented me, with the passions of first love,” or simply, “I had fallen in love with him, Harry,” or something else, something better — I’m no JKR. There are endless possibilities, and this isn’t the only opportunity: there are a number of moments where a key phrase could have been inserted naturally. He was being completely and utterly candid with Harry in this chapter — why leave this one detail implied when so much is at stake?

Alternately, it didn’t have to be Dumbledore. It could have been something as insignificant as a same-sex pair making out during the Yule Ball or holding hands across a table in Madam Puddifoot’s or going as dates to a Slug Club event or something as significant as Remus saying “I’m too old for you… too poor… too dangerous. And Sirius—” only to by interrupted by a proclamation from Tonks, “I know, Remus, I know! But Sirius is gone and I love you here, now, and we’re still alive.” Then Dumbledore could have been as secretive and circumlocutory as he wanted (‘inflamed’, indeed!) and no one would have criticized him for it.

darklorddiscount:

rereadingharry:

athomewithsherlock:

the-galway-girl:

She had the ability to influence across generations, and yet she never took the crucial step of putting even one openly gay couple in her books.

THANK YOU.

Everyone is always like oh isnt it so NICE that dumbledore was gay and in love with that one dude

isnt that so NICE its so LOVELY that she included a gay character

But freaking THINK ABOUT IT. The books never flat out STATED that Dumbles is a homo.

JK could have changed the world by writing this incredibly inspiring and influential book series and including one or two openly gay characters, in a relationship that is fully and completely endorsed by all the characters.

BUT NO.

That is the only thing that I will ever hate about the Harry Potter series.

Yes, the only thing. Yet, it’s this conflicted love-hate, because I love that part of the story — that Grindelwald-Dumbledore part of the story, and the broken nose, and the broken self-trust — and I’m grateful that she outed him eventually but, yes, I think the impact would have been very different if his orientation had been overtly stated in the text.

Okay, well, this makes me kinda eehh. YES I fully support gay rights, and YES I think its brilliant that Dumbledore is gay. But why is it such a big deal that it was written specifically in the book? Saying that you hate the series because it doesn’t promote a value that you believe is completely ridiculous. There are plenty of influential novels that have no mention of homosexuality; does that mean that they are bad books, or that the author did something wrong? JK Rowling subtly made a huge point by saying that love was powerful, no matter if it was platonic, homosexual, heterosexual, what have you. Anyways, I feel like Dumbledore was a very private man, and wouldn’t have made a big deal of flaunting his sexuality in the first place. If JK didn’t think of any of the main characters being overtly gay, that’s fine, it’s her book. That doesn’t mean she can’t advocate for gay rights outside of her novels.

Sorry, ranting. 

First, no one is saying that they hate the series because of this. At least, that’s not what I was saying. Hate is far from what I feel for the series.

Nor am I saying that it fails to support my views and is therefore bad. I believe in its message, I fully do.

It’s unfortunately true that plenty of influential novels don’t have gay characters — that’s the whole point — while it doesn’t matter much to heterosexual people (allies and slashers excepted, of course), queer folk like myself lament this absence, suffer this absence.

In the case of Potter, the books are about the power of love and the importance of equality among humans/magical beings; however, JKR neglected to overtly include a queer character or an instance of same-sex romantic love. What message does that send about the validity of that love or the value of such a person? Does it mean that she doesn’t think it’s important to demonstrate that validity or that value? One can argue that it simply sends no message, but then really it is a message of nonexistence — you don’t exist.

Dumbledore’s orientation should have sent a clear message: Brave and brilliant men, too, can love other men. Fans — young readers and old readers — would have received this as an affirmation from an author they admired, from a story they were invested in. The resulting controversy would have reached non-fans. Would people (fans and non-fans alike) have been swayed away from homophobia? I don’t know; I’m not of such a mind. When he was outed posthumously, post-series, there was indeed a controversy, there was a message, but both were muddled — too many people said she did it for publicity, or for the sake of controversy, or on a whim (would they have said this if she had outed him in canon? Perhaps, but their position would be harder to defend). Too many had to ask, why not sooner? If you support queer people, why did you withhold your support until it was, in a sense, too late? Why? Too many people will insist his orientation is technically not canon. Depending on your definition of canon, they’re right (some people include ‘word of god’ as canon, but this isn’t common academic practice). So, in a sense, I feel constantly that I must defend his sexuality, and her decision to cloak it, or the reverse… or what? What’s my moral duty here, to myself, to JKR, to queer politics, to literature, to Dumbledore?

When JKR outed Dumbledore I was happy about it — I literally ran out into the street and cheered. She is definitely, in her way, advocating gay rights and I’m thrilled about it — we shouldn’t ignore the fact that she did, ultimately, speak out for us in a big way. She still, perhaps, changed lives — at least one person came out because of that interview in Carnegie Hall — but, perhaps, fewer lives, or less change. It’s not really quantifiable. But the experience is so different. Rather than a blessing, it is a mixed blessing. He is gay, but invisibly so, like myself. He is gay, but I must defend his sexuality, the way I must frequently defend my own.

athomewithsherlock:

the-galway-girl:

athomewithsherlock:

amostworthygryffindor:

thef0restagain:

rereadingharry:

youagainsophie:

This brought tears to my eyes.

^^Reblogging for this note.

But this is still my favourite thing JKR has ever said in interview.

I love her so much oh my god everything that comes out of her mouth is perfection

This is truly gorgeous.

SO WHY WERE THERE NO GAY COUPLES

That has always bothered me. She had the ability to influence across generations, and yet she never took the crucial step of putting even one openly gay couple in her books.

THANK YOU.

Everyone is always like oh isnt it so NICE that dumbledore was gay and in love with that one dude

isnt that so NICE its so LOVELY that she included a gay character

But freaking THINK ABOUT IT. The books never flat out STATED that Dumbles is a homo.

JK could have changed the world by writing this incredibly inspiring and influential book series and including one or two openly gay characters, in a relationship that is fully and completely endorsed by all the characters.

BUT NO.

That is the only thing that I will ever hate about the Harry Potter series.

Yes, the only thing. Yet, it’s this conflicted love-hate, because I love that part of the story — that Grindelwald-Dumbledore part of the story, and the broken nose, and the broken self-trust — and I’m grateful that she outed him eventually but, yes, I think the impact would have been very different if his orientation had been overtly stated in the text.

Gay people actually exist.

(Source: memewhore)