![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sunnyskywalkerThere are a lot of things I could say about JK Rowling's revelation that she imagined Dumbledore as gay, but other people have said most of them already. (Including the "and she also more or less confirmed that his brother is into goats...is she trying to say something here?" thing.) So instead, I'm going to comment on one reaction I've seen around a lot: the reaction that goes, "She didn't mention it in the books because it's completely irrelevant and would have derailed Harry's coming-of-age story for Dumbledore's coming-out story!"
Okay, first, you don't need a whole special chapter or even scene to introduce the idea that Dumbledore is gay. Really. It can be part of another scene with another purpose, just like the way JKR introduces heterosexual relationships. The revelation that Tonks likes Lupin at the end of HBP wasn't only there to say, "Look, Tonks likes guys!" It also explained some of her strange behavior during the book, which was there as a red herring that had many of us imagining nefarious Polyjuice plots or PettigrewRedux!Tonks etc. Outing Dumbledore could have been part of Rita Skeeter's book, something like, "And according to Bathilda Bagshot, young Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was more than friendly. In fact, she revealed to me that Dumbledore delayed fighting this Dark wizard for years because the man wizards trusted to protect them placed his schoolboy crush above the good of wizardkind!" And she already insinuated that there was something funny about the duel, that Grindelwald maybe just surrendered - well, wouldn't this provide the bombshell about why?
Second, if a relatively small revelation like that would unacceptably derail the main Harry vs. Voldemort plot, than what do we make of the rest of the whole honking Dumbledore backstory being included? We spend two chapters just reading accounts of his life, and that's not the half of the Dumbledore backstory in this book. And it has little to do with Harry vs. Voldemort: Dumbledore could have been plenty manipulative and set up Harry's death without the backstory about Grindelwald and Ariana, and Harry could have gotten suspicious of Dumbledore's motives without it too. Any revelations could have concerned Dumbledore's actions during the first war, or even during Harry's schoolyears. And what about all those long descriptions of Bill and Fleur's wedding? The Lupin/Tonks subplot? The endless camping chapters? The goblin subplot that goes nowhere? The completely out of the blue Deathly Hallows? The...you get my point. When you look at it that way, most of the book is a giant derailment of the Harry vs. Voldemort plot.
Now, I actually think most of those elements could have been cut down by at least half, to the betterment of the book, but I also don't think they were entirely gratuitous. Badly set up, maybe (hello, Deathly Hallows!), but not gratuitous. All the marriages and romances strengthen the theme of love. The Hallows strengthen the theme of fearing death vs. accepting death. Dumbledore's brush with evil at Harry's age strengthens the theme of choices that I think is supposed to be in there as well as smacking Harry with another lesson about first impressions, blind trust, choices, and moral ambiguity.
Which brings me to my third and main point: not only would Dumbledore/Grindelwald not have been any less relevant or derailing than those other parts of the book, but Dumbledore/Grindelwald could have been just as relevant as many of them, strengthening the book's themes of love and choices and the proper use of power etc. It's the perfect counterpoint to the Snape/Lily revelation: instead of being slowly taken in by a bad crowd and then shaken enough to change when the bad crowd kills the good Love Interest, Dumbledore was slowly taken in by a bad Love Interest and then shaken enough to change when the bad Love Interest led to the death of the innocent sister he also loved. Furthermore, Dumbledore said in OotP that he tried to over-protect Harry because he realized he loved him - but he also says that he sometimes saw Voldemort looking out of Harry's eyes. Knowing that he's been burned before by someone he loved revealing a dark side gives this scene extra power.
So alternatively, instead of giving Rita the job of outing Dumbledore, in the big Dumbledore Explains It All scene Dumbledore could just say, "I understood how love could change Severus, having experienced something similar myself during my summer with Gellert Grindelwald." Harry puzzles over this for a moment, until suddenly Rita's insinuations coalesce in his mind. "Wait, what? You mean--" "Fortunately for Severus," Dumbledore continues blithely, "his love led him along a better path than mine nearly did. Now, about Voldemort..." End of revelation. Just one more puzzle piece fitted in, nothing that Harry would probably think about much further given everything else going on, but something that adds a little oomph to Dumbledore's motivations and to the overall themes.
I'd say that's at least as relevant as what color Fleur's bridesmaids wear.
Okay, first, you don't need a whole special chapter or even scene to introduce the idea that Dumbledore is gay. Really. It can be part of another scene with another purpose, just like the way JKR introduces heterosexual relationships. The revelation that Tonks likes Lupin at the end of HBP wasn't only there to say, "Look, Tonks likes guys!" It also explained some of her strange behavior during the book, which was there as a red herring that had many of us imagining nefarious Polyjuice plots or PettigrewRedux!Tonks etc. Outing Dumbledore could have been part of Rita Skeeter's book, something like, "And according to Bathilda Bagshot, young Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald was more than friendly. In fact, she revealed to me that Dumbledore delayed fighting this Dark wizard for years because the man wizards trusted to protect them placed his schoolboy crush above the good of wizardkind!" And she already insinuated that there was something funny about the duel, that Grindelwald maybe just surrendered - well, wouldn't this provide the bombshell about why?
Second, if a relatively small revelation like that would unacceptably derail the main Harry vs. Voldemort plot, than what do we make of the rest of the whole honking Dumbledore backstory being included? We spend two chapters just reading accounts of his life, and that's not the half of the Dumbledore backstory in this book. And it has little to do with Harry vs. Voldemort: Dumbledore could have been plenty manipulative and set up Harry's death without the backstory about Grindelwald and Ariana, and Harry could have gotten suspicious of Dumbledore's motives without it too. Any revelations could have concerned Dumbledore's actions during the first war, or even during Harry's schoolyears. And what about all those long descriptions of Bill and Fleur's wedding? The Lupin/Tonks subplot? The endless camping chapters? The goblin subplot that goes nowhere? The completely out of the blue Deathly Hallows? The...you get my point. When you look at it that way, most of the book is a giant derailment of the Harry vs. Voldemort plot.
Now, I actually think most of those elements could have been cut down by at least half, to the betterment of the book, but I also don't think they were entirely gratuitous. Badly set up, maybe (hello, Deathly Hallows!), but not gratuitous. All the marriages and romances strengthen the theme of love. The Hallows strengthen the theme of fearing death vs. accepting death. Dumbledore's brush with evil at Harry's age strengthens the theme of choices that I think is supposed to be in there as well as smacking Harry with another lesson about first impressions, blind trust, choices, and moral ambiguity.
Which brings me to my third and main point: not only would Dumbledore/Grindelwald not have been any less relevant or derailing than those other parts of the book, but Dumbledore/Grindelwald could have been just as relevant as many of them, strengthening the book's themes of love and choices and the proper use of power etc. It's the perfect counterpoint to the Snape/Lily revelation: instead of being slowly taken in by a bad crowd and then shaken enough to change when the bad crowd kills the good Love Interest, Dumbledore was slowly taken in by a bad Love Interest and then shaken enough to change when the bad Love Interest led to the death of the innocent sister he also loved. Furthermore, Dumbledore said in OotP that he tried to over-protect Harry because he realized he loved him - but he also says that he sometimes saw Voldemort looking out of Harry's eyes. Knowing that he's been burned before by someone he loved revealing a dark side gives this scene extra power.
So alternatively, instead of giving Rita the job of outing Dumbledore, in the big Dumbledore Explains It All scene Dumbledore could just say, "I understood how love could change Severus, having experienced something similar myself during my summer with Gellert Grindelwald." Harry puzzles over this for a moment, until suddenly Rita's insinuations coalesce in his mind. "Wait, what? You mean--" "Fortunately for Severus," Dumbledore continues blithely, "his love led him along a better path than mine nearly did. Now, about Voldemort..." End of revelation. Just one more puzzle piece fitted in, nothing that Harry would probably think about much further given everything else going on, but something that adds a little oomph to Dumbledore's motivations and to the overall themes.
I'd say that's at least as relevant as what color Fleur's bridesmaids wear.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 12:30 am (UTC)On the other hand, I can understand why she didn't do it. Portraying their relationship as a friendship is about as effective as portraying it as a romantic relationship (platonic, romantic, and parental love play are equally important). Since this is the case, it is better for her purposes to portray it as such since the age group that she targets might not understand what is going on anyways. Essentially, it would be easier for her audience to understand a non-romanitic relationship.
Honestly, I wasn't very surprise when I saw that story pop up on my Yahoo page. It made sense that she wrote Dumbledore with that in mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 12:39 am (UTC)Yeah, it works fine as-is. I don't know that the kids wouldn't understand, though; kids are pretty smart. And hey, if they didn't get why "Dumbledore loved Grindlewald" meant more than "they were best friends," it still works fine.
Now, if only Lupin and Tonks could have been friends rather than taking up so much space with their subplot... I want to know how the goblins and house-elves ended up instead of yet another couple, Jo! Why bring all that up and then not resolve it?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 01:30 am (UTC)But there could have been another way, too: she's had seven BOOKS to set this up. I can see how "Dumbledore is gay!" might have been a distraction from the main narrative if this news, and gayness generally, appeared suddenly in a climactic scene that was also trying to tie up a lot of other plot elements. But Rowling didn't have to do it like that. The choice isn't, and never was, between "reveal the D/G affair on page 549 of book seven" and "don't include any information about Dumbledore's sexuality at all." Rowling might easily have revealed the mere fact that Dumbledore was gay much, much, earlier in the series. Come to think of it, she could have used it to set up more effectively for the Grindelwald subplot, which seemed to me to spring up from out of the blue in the final volume. In book five or six, Harry could somehow have learned that a) D. was into guys, but b) D. had lost some mysterious early love. The entire Grindelwald plot in 7 would then come across like the answer to a question posed much earlier, rather as a fascinating but slightly OT sidelight to the Trio plot.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 02:49 am (UTC)Yeah, there is that ;) Rita Skeeter in GoF could have accused Dumbledore of Obliviating Gilderoy Lockhart to cover up evidence of their torrid affair or something, where we'd all go, "Oh! Well, okay then. So back to figuring how she's sneaking onto the grounds," until the last book when we'd all go, "D'oh! Of course! Tragic love affair! We should have guessed!"
And while she was at that, she could also have Ron or someone mention that Harry's cloak is even awesomer than normal since it isn't fading. And someone suggested that Dumbledore should have had a mysterious picture of a young girl in his office all along which he wouldn't explain. And Binns could have said back in Book Two that the Chamber of Secrets is a myth like the Deathly Hallows. Because there were just a few too many things coming out of the blue in DH!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 02:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-10-24 04:34 pm (UTC)