Albus Dumbledore

Despite the fact that a gay Dumbledore still seems strange to me (I'm slowly getting used to it), I can't say that it is "wrong". It can't be wrong if JK says that it is so.

But I agree with what Morkhan said earlier (you make a great point). Just think, a whole new way to analyze Dumbledore's every move!

By the way, it makes me wonder...if JKR had intended Grindelwald to be a female character, would Dumbledore still be gay? Was Dumbledore's homosexuality just the result of JKR wanting him to fall in love with a certain type of character?

Well, we seem to be taking it well, at least...
Coming as I do from another, more rabid fandom (actually the original fandom, Star Trek), I remember the uproar in the Communicator when on DS9, Jadzia Dax tried to ressurect a love from her previous host's lifetime, the thing being that the love had occured when the Dax symbiont was in a male host, the other in a female, and now there were two women hosts... Now, this isn't even an actual gay character, per say, but still, the Communicator was flooded with letters saying things like "How could Captain Sisko allow that to happen on his station?" Granted, this was pre-Ellen, and this was the first female-female kiss in national TV series history if I recall correctly ... but it actually made me feel ashamed to be a Star Trek fan for the second time in my life. (The first was The Final Frontier. And, the third was Enterprise.)
So I sometimes worry when something like this comes out. I get worried that the people I happen to share a marvelous obsession with may, in the words of Henry Rollins, be 'unable to get over a curb (an inch) high' in their minds. (Especially now that we're closing in on proving that homosexuality is a condition caused by genetics ... thus shooting down any logical discussion of gay activity being a sin. Not that that'll stop most Republicans, and Fundamentalist Christians ... sorry, didn't mean to repeat myself there.)
And yet here, so far, it seems that most people are annoyed that their Minerva/Dumbledore fics won't work out anymore. (Isn't that why there's an AU tag? And yes, you can take bewitching's advice and suggest he's really 'blessed with options', at least early in life -- Freddie Mercury and Elton John thought they were bisexual for the longest time, and then they learned otherwise.) But there's really not that much outrage, which makes me believe that we're actually making progress in this world for once. (Imagine that.)

Alright, now THIS particular sect of the fandom seems to be fairly mature, a credit to you all. Several other sections... well... they're not exactly taking this news in stride.

I've compiled a list of what I believe are very important things to consider when taking into account this new information on our beloved Headmaster.

First, think of the way this was revealed. Rowling did not call a press conference to proclaim it to the world: it was an answer given to a question that a fan asked completely by chance. In my opinion, this seems to suggest that in Rowling's mind, DD's sexual orientation was a rather minor issue in the series as we know it, possibly even a non-issue. Consumed with his duties at Hogwarts, the numerous prestigious positions he held, and later, with his duties to the Order and attempting to fight the war, not to mention the fact that he was long, long past his prime, I don't think Dumbledore even gave a passing thought to ANYTHING of a sexual nature. Of course that's just my opinion, which is easy to see as the most of the other boards I visit have become positively inundated with inane PervertedOldMan!Dumbledore jokes.

Second, it is also important to realize that according to Rowling, DD's crush was unrequited. So DD's relationship with Grindelwald was never anything more than friendship: more than likely, Gellert never even knew of DD's feelings. So while I'm sure the fandom will now gain a decent load of Albus/Gellert slash, you must remember that those stories will not be canon. Canon is a one-side crush that goes unnoticed, unrequited, and unmentioned. In my mind, that's even more tragic.

Thirdly, this answer was given in response to the question of whether or not Dumbledore ever loved anyone. Gellert was the only one mentioned, and Rowling refers to this love as 'his great tragedy.' That, to me, suggests that after Gellert, DD never fell in love with anyone else. Of course, Rowling could always reveal something else (or change her mind), but until she does, it seems that Albus never got over his first love.

And finally, I believe that Albus took this secret to the grave with him. Think of it this way: if there had been even the SLIGHTEST inkling of actual evidence that DD was gay, do you think Rita Skeeter would've passed up the chance to put it in her book? Or rather: do you think it would've been anything other than the almost-sole-focus of said book? The woman loves scandal, and that, my friends, would've had scandal written all over it. The fact that, from what we can tell, it's not in the book, suggests to me that DD never told anyone about what he felt.

The less mature people, both in and outside of the fandom, will almost certainly take this revelation as an opportunity to portray Albus as everything from an absolute raging homo, to a pedophile. In light of this, I think it is important that we, at least, have a firm grasp on reality: that Dumbledore was a firmly closeted homosexual in his youth, who had one real instance of falling in love which ended horrifically, who never loved anyone else and who, eventually, became an almost completely non-sexual being, giving himself entirely to his work and his duties within the world and becoming as fulfilled from them as any man can be (I don't think anyone would say Dumbledore's life was a hollow one).

Does this sound like a decent analysis to you guys? Any problems with it?

Quote:

---

By the way, it makes me wonder...if JKR had intended Grindelwald to be a female character, would Dumbledore still be gay? Was Dumbledore's homosexuality just the result of JKR wanting him to fall in love with a certain type of character?

---

This is actually a very good question, and also one brought up by a writer (?) of the Simpson's once. He didn't like all of the jokes that implied that Smithers was gay, because in his mind he wasn't, he just loved Mr. Burns. So had Mr. Burns been a women he would have been 'straight'. So, I think it is the same sort of situation here, and something that we'd have to really ask Jo to know.

I'll admit that, like Hermione, I didn't believe this until I saw in in print. While it's a bit of a shock to hear, I'm not entirely surprised by the news.

Morkhan basically said it all in one of the previous posts. This new Dumbledore is still the same one that we've always known and always been fond of -- hard working, brilliant, loyal, etc. His one, most likely unrequited love intrest, ended horribly. Dumbledore killed him in battle. The effect of such a thing must have been devastating, even if nothing more than a friendship had ever existed between them. After such a blow, it is easy to accept the fact that Dumbledore would devoted himself entirely to his work.

Ah well....the only disappointment I have is that I really liked the Minerva/Albus ship. But, that's beside the point :rolleyes: This really shouldn't change our perceptions of the sort of leader Dumbledore was. For goodness sake, he was only human. And I'm really quite glad that there is a homosexual character in the Harry Potter books. It just took me by surprise that Jo put that in an interview and not actually in the books. I would have loved to see how that was written.

~Kelly

EDIT: I had a nice, shiny, new thought.

The fact that Dumbledore lost the only person he loved probably had a huge influence on his explanation to Harry about how love is the thing that could save him. Dumbledore, having a disastrous flirtation with love (unrequited and then later having to kill Grindlewald), would have had a fascination with people who had the capability to embody love. Such as Harry.

I'd like to think that Dumbledore was obsessed with the great amount of love in Harry's life because it was something that Dumbledore could never really have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morkhan

Alright, now THIS particular sect of the fandom seems to be fairly mature, a credit to you all. Several other sections... well... they're not exactly taking this news in stride.

I've compiled a list of what I believe are very important things to consider when taking into account this new information on our beloved Headmaster.

Second, it is also important to realize that according to Rowling, DD's crush was unrequited. So DD's relationship with Grindelwald was never anything more than friendship: more than likely, Gellert never even knew of DD's feelings. So while I'm sure the fandom will now gain a decent load of Albus/Gellert slash, you must remember that those stories will not be canon. Canon is a one-side crush that goes unnoticed, unrequited, and unmentioned. In my mind, that's even more tragic.

Thirdly, this answer was given in response to the question of whether or not Dumbledore ever loved anyone. Gellert was the only one mentioned, and Rowling refers to this love as 'his great tragedy.' That, to me, suggests that after Gellert, DD never fell in love with anyone else. Of course, Rowling could always reveal something else (or change her mind), but until she does, it seems that Albus never got over his first love.

And finally, I believe that Albus took this secret to the grave with him. Think of it this way: if there had been even the SLIGHTEST inkling of actual evidence that DD was gay, do you think Rita Skeeter would've passed up the chance to put it in her book? Or rather: do you think it would've been anything other than the almost-sole-focus of said book? The woman loves scandal, and that, my friends, would've had scandal written all over it. The fact that, from what we can tell, it's not in the book, suggests to me that DD never told anyone about what he felt.

The less mature people, both in and outside of the fandom, will almost certainly take this revelation as an opportunity to portray Albus as everything from an absolute raging homo, to a pedophile. In light of this, I think it is important that we, at least, have a firm grasp on reality: that Dumbledore was a firmly closeted homosexual in his youth, who had one real instance of falling in love which ended horrifically, who never loved anyone else and who, eventually, became an almost completely non-sexual being, giving himself entirely to his work and his duties within the world and becoming as fulfilled from them as any man can be (I don't think anyone would say Dumbledore's life was a hollow one).

Does this sound like a decent analysis to you guys? Any problems with it?

---

The analysis sounds good but yes, I have some problems with it.

One, we have really no evidence to believe that the Wizarding World is anywhere near as ridiculous about homosexuality as the Muggle World is. Perhaps they have figured out that your sexual orientation is nobody's business. In that vein, Rita wouldn't have bothered because nobody would have cared.

Having said that, I don't have any objection to there being a gay character in Harry Potter. (To be perfectly honest, I'm quite happy about that). I'm not even particularly irritated with it being Dumbledore, other than it was completely random (I dislike the "Neville lives in a flat above a pub" comment for the exact same reason). However, I am VERY UNHAPPY with it being a character who is described as being "flamboyant" (remember his purple velvet leisure suit?), which is a stereotype I sincerely wish she hadn't catered to.

I also wish she hadn't said he never loved anyone *except* Gellert; for starters, that's going to give fuel to the people who insist homosexuality is "wrong" ("see, you loved an evil overlord! come to the right side and you'll love a proper woman like you're suposed to!" *rolls eyes*), and honestly, I'm quite sure he loved his family.

Further, I have ALWAYS rejected the idea that you can only love one person in Harry Potter. That's unrealistic and I've disliked it for Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione, James/Lily, Severus/Lily, Tonks/Lupin, and I dislike it equally for Albus/Gellert. The ONLY couple I like that in is Arthur/Molly. It's as if she dreamed up this "one love only" business when she was still reeling from her divorce and that the concept, no matter how unrealistic and frankly, poorly advised, that is, is idyllic to her.

I really think it's unfair and unrealistic to expect that if you have a love, (homosexual or heterosexual) that doesn't pan out for you, that you're to live a non-sexual life from that point forward. That's just . . . bad. And honestly, that's not what the homosexual and bisexual youth of this era need to hear. Quite frankly, it's saying "Oh but look, he became a good man in spite of his <strike>affliction</strike> homosexuality!", when his sexual orientation should have nothing whatsoever to do with the legacy of his life.

One last thing, what the hell is wrong with people? You never hear "raging" applied to a heterosexual!

(And if anyone were ever described as ragingly heterosexual, it'd probably be me, but jeez, that's a stupid thing to say)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amber0_o

This is actually a very good question, and also one brought up by a writer (?) of the Simpson's once. He didn't like all of the jokes that implied that Smithers was gay, because in his mind he wasn't, he just loved Mr. Burns. So had Mr. Burns been a women he would have been 'straight'. So, I think it is the same sort of situation here, and something that we'd have to really ask Jo to know.

---

Hooo boy, here come the "$moniker trapped in the wrong body" jokes . . .

*sigh*

Actually, what's wrong with platonic love, whether it be a male platonically loving a male, a female platonically loving a female, a male platonically loving a female or a female platonically loving a male?

This is how I'd FERVENTLY HOPED that Snape/Evans would be portrayed, because I just knew if she tried to make it romantic, it was going to be a train wreck. But even I didn't expect it to be as horrid as it was. *cries*

There *are* asexual human beings. And it is also possible to absolutely adore someone with every fiber of your being and not want to jump into bed with them/marry them/have their children.

I wish we had seen more of THAT in the Potterverse, to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmwinters

The analysis sounds good but yes, I have some problems with it.

One, we have really no evidence to believe that the Wizarding World is anywhere near as ridiculous about homosexuality as the Muggle World is. Perhaps they have figured out that your sexual orientation is nobody's business. In that vein, Rita wouldn't have bothered because nobody would have cared.

Having said that, I don't have any objection to there being a gay character in Harry Potter. (To be perfectly honest, I'm quite happy about that). I'm not even particularly irritated with it being Dumbledore, other than it was completely random (I dislike the "Neville lives in a flat above a pub" comment for the exact same reason). However, I am VERY UNHAPPY with it being a character who is described as being "flamboyant" (remember his purple velvet leisure suit?), which is a stereotype I sincerely wish she hadn't catered to.

I also wish she hadn't said he never loved anyone *except* Gellert; for starters, that's going to give fuel to the people who insist homosexuality is "wrong" ("see, you loved an evil overlord! come to the right side and you'll love a proper woman like you're suposed to!" *rolls eyes*), and honestly, I'm quite sure he loved his family.

Further, I have ALWAYS rejected the idea that you can only love one person in Harry Potter. That's unrealistic and I've disliked it for Harry/Ginny, Ron/Hermione, James/Lily, Severus/Lily, Tonks/Lupin, and I dislike it equally for Albus/Gellert. The ONLY couple I like that in is Arthur/Molly. It's as if she dreamed up this "one love only" business when she was still reeling from her divorce and that the concept, no matter how unrealistic and frankly, poorly advised, that is, is idyllic to her.

I really think it's unfair and unrealistic to expect that if you have a love, (homosexual or heterosexual) that doesn't pan out for you, that you're to live a non-sexual life from that point forward. That's just . . . bad. And honestly, that's not what the homosexual and bisexual youth of this era need to hear. Quite frankly, it's saying "Oh but look, he became a good man in spite of his <strike>affliction</strike> homosexuality!", when his sexual orientation should have nothing whatsoever to do with the legacy of his life.

One last thing, what the hell is wrong with people? You never hear "raging" applied to a heterosexual!

(And if anyone were ever described as ragingly heterosexual, it'd probably be me, but jeez, that's a stupid thing to say)

---

Well, you're right that we have no DIRECT evidence that the Wizarding World is as intolerant as the Muggle one on that issue. But we can certainly extrapolate, especially given the fact that they are EXTREMELY prejudiced and intolerant to... well... damn near everything else (non-purebloods, werewolves, vampires, etc). The Wizarding World as a whole strikes me as a very antiquated place as far as the acceptance of ideas is concerned, which is understandable, as wizards (and consequently, their ideas) live much longer than muggles.

Of course he loved his family. The question she was answering was referring to romantic love, of which he only had for Gellert. That's what I was talking about, as well. I'm sorry if I made that more confusing than it needed to be.

As for the 'one love only' business, with Snape/Lily and Albus/Gellert, I'd say it's justified as the horrific circumstances in which those loves ended would've surely effected both men deeply, possibly too deeply for them to truly be able to recover from. It is remarkable to me how alike Severus and Albus are, in many ways: they are both men who have devoted the entirety of their lives to making up for the single worst thing they ever did. But that is a discussion for another time.

And for the rest of the 'one loves,' I can only say that Harry Potter is, at heart, a fairy tale, and fairy tales have happily-ever-afters, at least for the main characters. It's not the most realistic thing (I agree that canon romance as a whole in the HP-verse just isn't really done well), but Rowling isn't perfect.

And as for the 'love not panning out' thing, it's one thing for a relationship not to work out. It's quite another for a relationship to end in the death of your sister. And for the object of your affections to become an evil overlord which only you can defeat. And it's still another for the object of your affections to fall into the arms of the person you most hate in the world, and for you to be, however accidentally, almost directly responsible for their demise. Like I said before, Snape and Dumbledore's romantic feelings ended in utterly horrific ways, and I should hope that such a thing is not normal for us out here in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cmwinters

One, we have really no evidence to believe that the Wizarding World is anywhere near as ridiculous about homosexuality as the Muggle World is. Perhaps they have figured out that your sexual orientation is nobody's business. In that vein, Rita wouldn't have bothered because nobody would have cared.

---

I think that Homosexuality would have been taboo in the wizarding world, the way the some Pure Bloods, Death Eaters in particular, react in a similar way to Nazi's in geology. Homosexuality would have been seen as, at best, a waste of wizarding genes as any relationship they have would not have resulted in children. At worst, an abomination, a disease or any of the other ridiculous ideas anti-homosexual groups imagine.

I agree with pretty much everything else you say though, I am glad Jo finally has a homosexual character in the Harry Potter series. Although I'm not sure where all this "Dumbledore killed Grindelwald" stuff came from, Dumbledore never killed him only defeated him, Grindelwald was killed by Voldemort in Book seven. Dumbledore was never supposed to have killed anyone, let alone the (supposed) only person he loved. The Tragedy comes from how Dumbledore was blinded by his feelings for him and never saw the true, dark, intentions he had to gain power. I see him as though he felt betrayed by Grindelwald and his heart.

Quote:

---

One last thing, what the hell is wrong with people? You never hear "raging" applied to a heterosexual!

---

I just wanted to reiterate this (not only because of its comedic value though, raging Hetro, :p !).

Quote:

---

Dumbledore killed him in battle

---

I don't think anybody caught this, but no he didn't. Grinewald was alive in book seven until Voldy killed him.

As for Dumbledore being gay, it really is out of nowhere. (Well, actucally, I jokingly thought the only reason Dumbledore would hang out with Gellert was because they were secret lovers. As you could probably guess I am brick red with irony and embrassment).The only reason it was kept out of the books was to prevent a media frenzy, and probably, to keep the extreme Christians from having even more reason to hate the HP books.

I personally believe being gay is fine, and I find that his love for Grindelwald was unrequieted completley adorable (and sad).

So, well good for you Dumbledore!

This is a reminder that the thread is solely used to discuss the character of Albus Dumbledore NOT your personal opinions about his homosexuality. As stated in several threads in this forum, all users will keep an open-mind about ALL characters and pairings. While you may not agree with some pairings, you are NOT allowed to impress your views on other people. Declaring Dumbledore/Grindelwald as "wrong" is rude. Points will be deducted if I see more of those posts.