Harry Potter...for friends and fans alike

[MaineWriter]

From Time Magazine:

Monday, Oct. 22, 2007
Put Dumbledore Back in the Closet
By John Cloud

When J.K. Rowling announced at Carnegie Hall that Albus Dumbdledore—her Aslan, her Gandalf, her Yoda—was gay, the crowd apparently sat in silence for a few seconds and then burst into wild applause. I'm still sitting in silence. Dumbledore himself never saw fit to come out of the closet before dying in book six. And I feel a bit like I did when we learned too much about Mark Foley and Larry Craig: You are not quite the role model I'd hoped for as a gay man.

I'm not defending the closet, a perilous and sad place. But I don't see how Rowling's outing of Dumbledore strikes a blow for gay equality so great that even Carnegie Hall—cathedral of the arts, cynosure of homosexuals—should erupt in joy.

Yes, it's nice that gays finally got a major character in the sci-fi/fantasy universe. Until now, we had been shut out of all the major franchises. Tolkien, a conservative Catholic, wrote a rich supply of homoeroticism into The Lord of the Rings—all those Men and Hobbits and Elves singing to each other during long, woman-less quests. The books and their film versions feature tender scenes between Frodo and Samwise. But in the end Sam marries Rose Cotton and fathers 13 children. Thirteen! You'd think he had something to prove.

Other fantasy worlds have presented gay (or at least gay-seeming) characters, but usually they are, literally, inhuman. George Lucas gave us the epicene C-3PO and the little butch R2-D2, and their Felix-Oscar dialogue suggests the banter of a couple of old queens who have been keeping intergalactic house for millennia. But their implied homosexuality is quite safe. There is no real flesh that could actually entangle, just some electrical wiring. Similarly, there was a complicated girl-on-girl plot in 1995 on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, but let me spare you a fanboy's geeked-out summary by noting merely that the two girls weren't really girls—they were gender-complex aliens called Trills—and all they did was kiss.

So along comes Rowling with Dumbledore—a human being, a wizard even, an indisputable hero and one of the most beloved figures in children's literature. Shouldn't I be happy to learn he's gay?

Yes, except: Why couldn't he tell us himself? The Potter books add up to more than 800,000 words before Dumbledore dies in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and yet Rowling couldn't spare two of those words—"I'm gay"—to help define a central character's emotional identity? We can only conclude that Dumbledore saw his homosexuality as shameful and inappropriate to mention among his colleagues and students. His silence suggests a lack of personal integrity that is completely out of character.

I had always given the Potter books a pass on the lack of gay characters because, especially at first, they were intended for little kids. But particularly with the appearance of the long, violent later books, Rowling allowed her witches and wizards to grow up, to get zits and begin romances, to kill and die. It seemed odd that not even a minor student character at Hogwarts was gay, especially since Rowling was so p.c. about making her magical creatures of different races and species, incomes, national origins, and developmental abilities. In a typical passage, the briefly mentioned Blaise Zabini is described as "a tall black boy with high cheekbones and long, slanting eyes." Would it have been so difficult to write in a line in which Zabini takes the exquisitely named Justin Finch-Fletchley to the Yule Ball?

And then there's Dumbledore himself. I don't mind saying I got misty when Rowling killed off Dumbledore in Half-Blood Prince. His twinkling eyes, his flowing manteau, his unfailing (if at times fortune-cookie-ish) wisdom—Rowling made it impossible not to revere him.

But here is a gay man as de-sexed as any priest—and, to uncomfortably extend the analogy, whose greatest emotional bond is with an adolescent boy: scarred, orphaned, needy Harry. Rowling said at Carnegie Hall that in her conception of his character, Dumbledore had fallen in love long ago with Gellert Grindelwald when the two were just teenagers. But Grindelwald turned out to be evil, which apparently broke Dumbledore's heart. (Quite evil: Grindelwald is Rowling's Hitler figure, opening a camp called "Nurmengard" for political enemies in the 1940s. Dumbledore/Churchill eventually defeats Grindelwald/Hitler in a 1945 duel.)

But as far as we know, Dumbledore had not a single fully realized romance in 115 years of life. That's pathetic, and a little creepy. It's also a throwback to an era of pop culture when the only gay characters were those who committed suicide or were murdered. As Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies (1981) points out, in film after film of the mid-century—Rebel Without a Cause; Rebecca; Suddenly, Last Summer—the gay characters must pay for their existence with death. Like a lisping weakling, Dumbledore is a painfully selfless, celibate, dead gay man, so forgive me if I don't see Rowling's revelation as great progress.

Am I making too much of this? Undoubtedly. Some of the best Star Trek fan fiction—and there is so much you couldn't read it all in a lifetime—involves steamy Kirk-Spock love affairs. So it will be with the Potter world, as Rowling has acknowledged. Lasting books cease to be their authors' property; we are now all free to imagine a gay life more whole and fulfilling than the one Rowling gave Dumbledore. But it would have been better if she had just left the old girl to rest in peace.

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1674550,00.html

[dot-matrix]

From IMDb and WENN

Rowling Shocked by Response to Gay Dumbledore


 Author J.K. Rowling is stunned by the reaction she received after outing popular Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore as gay. The writer revealed the truth about the Hogwarts school headmaster's sexuality at New York's Carnegie Hall on Friday as part of her American book tour. The outing of Dumbledore provoked more that 3,000 comments on Harry Potter fansite, The Leaky Cauldron - and Rowling is shocked by the furor over her character's sexual orientation. Rowling says, "It has certainly never been news to me that a brave and brilliant man could love other men. He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him."

[MaineWriter]

Here's an interesting editorial from the Dallas Morning News:


Harry Potter and the author who wouldn't shut up

BOOKS: Now that J.K.'s outed Dumbledore, will she leave nothing to the imagination?

08:09 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 24, 2007

By JEFFREY WEISS / The Dallas Morning News
[email protected]

With the greatest of respect, I'd like to say something to Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling:

Shut up. Please.

Stop talking about what Ron will do for a living, whom Neville will marry, what kinds of creatures Hagrid will raise.

If you didn't put it in the books, please don't tell us now.

I guess I don't want you to stop explaining completely. I'd love to know more about what inspired some of the plot details in the books. If you want to dish about how you decided on those particular inscriptions for the headstones, how you came up with the names for the characters, or how you cleverly planned the religious underpinnings of the broad arc of the story – I am all ears.

But telling us that Dumbledore is gay, as you did last week? Why would you do that?

As a fan, I can understand both the authorial impulse and the public interest. As a reader, it's making me nuts.

Another awfully good British author, the late Douglas Adams of the successful Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy series, confronted a comparable question a few years back. One of his fans asked about the kind of computer one of his characters used. He replied, in part:

"The book is a work of fiction. It's a sequence of words arranged to unfold a story in a reader's mind. There is no such actual, real person as Arthur Dent. He has no existence outside the sequence of words designed to create an idea of this imaginary person in people's minds. There is no objective real world I am describing, or which I can enter, and pick up his computer, look at it and tell you what model it is, or turn it over and read off its serial number for you. It doesn't exist."

I'd disagree with that a bit. It does exist – in the minds of any reader who wants it to exist. And that's what you're interfering with.

The physicist Erwin Schrödinger long ago came up with a wonderful thought experiment. He imagined a cat that existed across possibilities – somehow simultaneously alive and dead until somebody checked to see which was true.

What seems weird (but true) in physics is just the way it has always been with a good story. What exactly did Huck Finn's raft look like? Did Captain Ahab's father whip him every St. Swithin's Day? Did Bilbo Baggins use product on his hair back in the Shire?

As a reader, I get to decide, because the author left those details untold in the books. Which is one reason that a book is almost always better than the movie based on it. More explicit backstory is not always better. Compare the brilliant book (and cartoon) of How the Grinch Stole Christmas with the awful live-action movie. The Grinch had an unhappy childhood? Who cares?

Based on what you decided to put in the books, I can imagine that Dumbledore once had a girlfriend or that he was so emotionally crushed by guilt that he sealed himself off from romance or that he was one of those rare men for whom romance never really came up – or that he was gay.

I can consider any of those possibilities as I read – or I can mull over all of them at the same time. Talk about magic.

Is Dumbledore gay? He is for you, apparently. But unless you said it in the actual books, must he be so for me? Your saying so now makes it harder for me to imagine anything different. Do you really want to limit your fictional world that way?

Jo – can I call you Jo? Like all of your myriad fans, I've spent so much time exploring the children of your mind over this past decade that I feel we are friends.

You lived with Harry, his friends and his foes for so many years. You birthed them, shaped them, honed the fine details of their existence. And you thought long and hard about exactly which of those details were so important to the story that you would include them in the books.

For all of those years, until those books were published, the characters and settings were yours to command and control. But then you let them go.

And speaking for all of your happy readers I need to tell you: Now they are ours.

Jeffrey Weiss is a general assignment reporter for The Dallas Morning News.

[MaineWriter]

And from the Los Angeles Times:


Seven clues that 'Potter's' Dumbledore was gay
"Albus Dumbledore" is an anagram of "Male bods rule, bud!"
By Deborah Netburn
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 23, 2007

The Potter-verse was thrown for a loop when author J.K. Rowling announced she had always imagined one of the main characters in the "Harry Potter" series -- Albus Dumbledore -- to be gay.

Even the most diligent "Harry Potter" scholars found themselves caught unaware. But could anyone have seen this coming? Did Rowling leave any clues in the book?

To find out we called Andrew Slack, head of the Harry Potter Alliance, an organization that uses online organizing to mobilize more than 100,000 Harry Potter fans around social justice issues, drawing on parallels from the book. Slack is incredibly fluent in "Potter" textual analysis, and we knew that if anyone could predict Rowling's curveball, it would be him.

Speaking from his home in Boston, Slack said he hadn't guessed that Dumbledore was gay, but in hindsight, he was able to point to specific character traits of the Hogwarts headmaster that might have indicated his sexual orientation.

Below he tells us seven textual clues that Dumbledore was gay.

1. His pet. "Fawkes, the many-colored phoenix, is 'flaming.'"

2. His name. "While the anagram to 'Tom Marvolo Riddle' is 'I am Lord Voldemort,' as my good friend pointed out, 'Albus Dumbledore' becomes 'Male bods rule, bud!'"

3. His fashion sense. "Whether it's his 'purple cloak and high-heeled boots,' a 'flamboyantly cut suit of plum velvet,' a flowered bonnet at Christmas or his fascination with knitting patterns, Dumbledore defies the fashion standards of normative masculinity and, of course, this gives him a flair like no other. It's no wonder that even the uppity portrait of former headmaster Phineas Nigellus announced, 'You cannot deny he's got style.'"

4. His sensitivity. "Leaders like Cornelius Fudge, Rufus Scrimgeour and Dolores Umbridge (yes, even a woman) who are limited by the standards of normative masculinity could not fully embrace where Voldemort was weakest: in his capacity to love. Dumbledore understood that it's tougher to be vulnerable, to express one's feelings, and that one's undying love for friends and for life itself is a more powerful weapon than fear. Even his most selfish moments in pursuing the Deathly Hallows were motivated either by his feelings for Grindelwald or his wish to apologize to his late sister."

5. His openness. "After she outed Dumbledore, Rowling said that she viewed the whole series as a prolonged treatise on tolerance. Dumbledore is the personification of this. Like the LGBT community that has time and again used its own oppression to fight for the equality of others, Dumbledore was a champion for the rights of werewolves, giants, house elves, muggle-borns, centaurs, merpeople -- even alternative marriage. When it came time to decide whether the marriage between Lupin the werewolf and Tonks the full-blooded witch could be considered natural, Professor Minerva McGonagall said, 'Dumbledore would have been happier than anybody to think that there was a little more love in the world.'"

6. His historical parallel. "If Dumbledore were like any one in history, it would have to be Leonardo DaVinci. They both were considered eccentric geniuses ('He's a genius! Best wizard in the world! But he is a bit mad, yes'); both added a great deal to our body of knowledge (after all, Dumbledore did discover the 12 uses of dragon's blood!); both were solitary, both were considered warm, loving and incredibly calm; both dwelt in mysterious mystical realms; both spent a lot of time with their journals (Leonardo wrote his backwards while Dumbledore was constantly diving into his pensieve); both even had long hair! And, of course, a popular thought among many scholars is that the maestro Leonardo was gay."

7. The fact that so few of us realized he was gay. "No matter how many 'clues' I can put down that Dumbledore was gay, no matter how many millions of people have read these books again and again, Rowling surprised even the most die-hard fans with the announcement that Dumbledore was gay. And in the end, the fact that we never would have guessed is what makes Dumbledore being gay so real. So many times I have encountered friends who are gay that I never would have predicted. It has shown me that one's sexual orientation is not some obvious 'lifestyle choice,' it's a precious facet of our multi-faceted personalities. And in the end whatever the differences between our personalities are, it is time that our world heeds Dumbledore's advice: 'Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.' Today as I write this, I believe that it's time for our aims to be loyal to what the greatest wizard in the world would have wanted them to be: love."

[louisev]

Here is another "nay" vote on outing Dumbledore:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/29/arts/29conn.html?em&ex=1193803200&en=dc5213d6bef5e62e&ei=5087%0A

I found myself nodding with the theory that "it isnt relevant."

[MaineWriter]

From ABC news:

'Harry Potter' Fans Disappointed
New Spinoff From J.K. Rowling Will Go to a Select Few Handpicked by Author
By LAMA HASAN

LONDON, Nov. 2, 2007 —

"Harry Potter" fans brace yourselves. The wizardry tales of "Beedle the Bard" -- mentioned in the final book "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" -- are handwritten and the illustrations are by J.K. Rowling herself. But here's the catch: Only seven of the books exist in the world!

"Six of these books have been given to those most closely connected to the 'Harry Potter' books during the past 17 years. This seventh book will be auctioned," Rowling explained in a recent BBC interview.

Harry Potter and his world of wizards, witches and warlocks has made Rowling a rich woman. The author has sold 350 million books and counting, been translated into 65 languages and had her work made into highly successful movies. But this time, Rowling told the BBC, the money will go to a charity in Europe close to her heart.

"I could not think of any person with less of a voice, more disenfranchised than a child with mental health issues or mental illness or mentally handicapped who has been taken from their family or given by their family to a mental institution and then placed in a cage," she said.

Rowling put pen to paper to say farewell to all things Harry Potter.

"I've been writing about the world, about Harry, Ron and Hermione, but it comes from that world. It's been partly, I didn't expect it to be, but it's been therapeutic in a way -- a nice way to say goodbye," she said.

What about those fans who won't get to enjoy the tales?

Fourteen-year-old Terrel Phelps is not too happy. "It's kind of depressing," he told ABC News, "because I know there's gonna be something in it that I really don't know yet I won't get to know, and that makes me upset."

Fourth-grader Alexis Harris from New York is more resigned. "I think it would be nice to read it but & what can you do?''

If you're thinking of bidding on the one book up for auction next month, the starting price is a mere $60,000.

But diehard "Potter" fans shouldn't be too disheartened -- Rowling owns the copyrights to her new fairy tales, and their mysteries may still one day be revealed.

And she is working on another story.

"There's a half-finished book for children, that will probably be the next thing I do, that I publish," she said. "But I am in no rush to publish at the moment."

Still, at least it's something to look forward to.

[MaineWriter]

from Entertainment Weekly:

Final 'Harry Potter' Split Into Two Movies

Warner Bros. will release the first part of ''Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows'' in November 2010 with a second movie following in May 2011
''Harry Potter'' Seeing as the franchise has grossed billions, it's a wonder the final film isn't being split into a dozen parts

Murray Close

(FROM VARIETY) – The final installment of the Harry Potter movie franchise is being released in two parts, six months apart. Warner Bros. is set to release the first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows in November 2010 with the second part of the finale opening in May 2011. Both movies will be directed by David Yates and written by Steve Kloves. The movies will be shot concurrently, and it's not yet clear at what point in the story, adapted from J.K. Rowling's 784-page book, the films will break. The seventh and final novel sees Harry and his friends battle archnemesis Voldemort to the death. The book sold a record 11 million copies during the first 24 hours after its release last July. The sixth movie, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, also directed by Yates, will open this November. Daniel Radcliffe and the rest of the cast from the sixth movie are already confirmed for the finale.

[Brown Eyes]

I think it's a good idea to split up the last book into two movies.  I felt like the 5th movie was really rushed in order to fit all the vital info in.    These later books are so long and complex, they seem well suited to longer amounts of time on film.