Is there room for sexuality in children´s books?

[VintagePunk]

Leaving aside accusations of pandering to a specific group, or of forwarding an agenda, and looking at it from purely a plot perspective (which I think is the only logical way to look at it, the rest is silliness, IMO), I think JK's revelation is a positive thing.

My daughter and I were discussing this last night and came to the conclusion that Dumbledore's infatuation goes a long way toward explaining a plot point from the final book, something that, at the time, seemed incredibly out of character for him. Now that we know his motivation, it seems very understandable, it humanizes him and makes him seem fallible, prone to emotion and poor judgment, like the rest of us are, at times.

Something I quoted from JK a page ago:

"I think a child will see a friendship and I think a sensitive adult may well understand that it was an infatuation," she said.

I'm apparently not a sensitive adult, because I didn't pick up on a romantic longing at all, when I read it.

 

[phillyfan26]

BrownEyedBoy - I must ask you: Do you still not know after 13 pages that she only mentioned this in an answer to a question?

 

[U2girl]

what is there to handle?

she gave the backstory on a character.

i'm so sick of this. people who have a problem with this need to grow up.

honestly.

Calm down.

I don't care whether Dumbledore chases every witch skirt (or every wizard pants) he wants to (that part of wizard world doesn't interest me - and we never heard anything about Dumbledore's romances anyway), but this will just give more ammo to the "HP books are spoiling kids. Witchcraft!" crowd (I'm surprised they're not having a field day with the last book and the obvious saviour/Christ-like Harry). It will stop some kids from being allowed to read the books and worst of all, it is dividing her own fanbase.

I'm curious if the last two movies' attendance will be affected...

The question itself was "did Dumbledore find true love?" and she could have just said "No." and put this info in the forthcoming HP encyclopedia and reduce all the hoopla that way. It wasn't relevant to the story either (actually only one out of all the romances in the entire story was). The books still work if you look at Dumbledore and Grindelwald as best friends (which is how I always see it, same goes for the "gays" in LOTR), thank you for that post, VintagePunk.

I also don't get the bravery that some proclaim - it's a fictional character. All the uproar is ridicoulusly blown out of proportion.

 

[A_Wanderer]

the Aussie i dated, briefly, had interesting things to say about mateship and being gay.

but that's for another time.

Self selecting sample

 

[phillyfan26]

Oh, so she dictate her books and characters based on how the ignorant will respond.

 

[BVS]

it is dividing her own fanbase.

What's to divide, the Christian right has already stopped reading her books, who cares?

I'm curious if the last two movies' attendance will be affected...

The question itself was "did Dumbledore find true love?" and she could have just said "No." and put this info in the forthcoming HP encyclopedia and reduce all the hoopla that way. It wasn't relevant to the story either (actually only one out of all the romances in the entire story was). The books still work if you look at Dumbledore and Grindelwald as best friends (which is how I always see it, same goes for the "gays" in LOTR), thank you for that post, VintagePunk.

I also don't get the bravery that some proclaim - it's a fictional character. All the uproar is ridicoulusly blown out of proportion.

You just made the point of bravery. Thank you very much for doing so. You said, "it could have been handled better", and "she could have just said no", but she didn't even though it may piss off the bigots. She did what she thought was right and be honest about the backstory that she developed.

Could of been handled better?

 

[VintagePunk]

It will stop some kids from being allowed to read the books and worst of all, it is dividing her own fanbase.

I can't see this being a huge factor in kids being allowed or not allowed to read the book. I have a feeling that the ones bothered by this would be the ones who probably wouldn't let them read it to begin with. I could be wrong though, that's just speculation.

The question itself was "did Dumbledore find true love?" and she could have just said "No." and put this info in the forthcoming HP encyclopedia and reduce all the hoopla that way. It wasn't relevant to the story either (actually only one out of all the romances in the entire story was). The books still work if you look at Dumbledore and Grindelwald as best friends (which is how I always see it, same goes for the "gays" in LOTR), thank you for that post, VintagePunk.

Not to be nitpicky, but you worded the original question wrong, which changes the context (and therefore the answer) in a subtle way. The original exchange went like this:

Q: Did Dumbledore, who believed in the prevailing power of love, ever fall in love himself?

JKR: My truthful answer to you... I always thought of Dumbledore as gay. [ovation.] ... Dumbledore fell in love with Grindelwald, and that that added to his horror when Grindelwald showed himself to be what he was. To an extent, do we say it excused Dumbledore a little more because falling in love can blind us to an extent? But, he met someone as brilliant as he was, and rather like Bellatrix he was very drawn to this brilliant person, and horribly, terribly let down by him. Yeah, that's how i always saw Dumbledore. In fact, recently I was in a script read through for the sixth film, and they had Dumbledore saying a line to Harry early in the script saying I knew a girl once, whose hair... [laughter]. I had to write a little note in the margin and slide it along to the scriptwriter, "Dumbledore's gay!" [laughter] If I'd known it would make you so happy, I would have announced it years ago!

IMO, there's quite a difference between did he find true love?, in which the answer probably would have been "no," and "did he ever fall in love?" in which the answer is essentially "yes, and it made him behave in ways that were out of character for him."

So, in that context, I believe that it really does make a difference to the plot, and the way that Dumbledore and his behaviour can be viewed.


Also, I'd just like to add that on JK's current book-reading jaunt, she's given a considerable amount of backstory and post-book information about many of the characters, not just Dumbledore.

 

[Irvine511]

It will stop some kids from being allowed to read the books and worst of all, it is dividing her own fanbase.

firstly, don't tell me to clam down. i'm so sick of putting up with this bullshit (in general, not you specifically, not at all) and i think i'm nearly always very, very calm when discussing these things that are so unbelievably offensive and stupid and ignorant.

however, perhaps Rowling is more focused on the integrity of her characters than she is on maximizing her book sales?

i mean, just maybe, she doesn't give a shit what the bigots think ...

 

[U2girl]

I'm not talking about bigots, it's more about her readers.

Have you tried visiting any of the HP sites ? There are negative reactions too, including the extreme "I will never read HP again".

And yes, I think she could have chosen another way to do it. Can't people have an opinion on what she says ?

 

[Irvine511]

Self selecting sample

actually, he said it wasn't an issue with his mates. it wasn't acknowledged, either, even though they all knew he was gay, it just never came up lest the mateship be interrupted. so it was kind of like farting in public -- you know it's there, but you just don't acknowledge it for the sake of social harmony.

he also explained "mateship" in an Aussie context -- that it had something to do with a history of living in such a harsh environment and having to depend on your mates to such a degree that certain bonds are formed and maintained at nearly all costs for the sake of mere survival.

if memory serves. it was only a couple of dates.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not talking about bigots, it's more about her readers.

Have you tried visiting any of the HP sites ? There are negative reactions too, including the extreme "I will never read HP again".

And yes, I think she could have chosen another way to do it. Can't people have an opinion on what she says ?

honestly, no. homophobia aside (and, honestly, i don't think she'd want to have such idiots as readers anyway), it's totally bogus to have an "opinion" on the backstory of the character. it's like having an opinion the fact that Harry has glasses.

 

[A_Wanderer]

^So you see, the Hobbits are not gay, unless of course Samwise was overcompensating with those 13 children

 

[Diemen]

I'm not talking about bigots, it's more about her readers.

Have you tried visiting any of the HP sites ? There are negative reactions too, including the extreme "I will never read HP again".

No, you are talking about bigots. If any of her readers stop reading her books just because of this, they're bigots. It's as simple as that.

 

[Irvine511]

If any of her readers stop reading her books because of this, then they are bigots.

and i love what JK's attitude seems to be: fuck 'em.

 

[VintagePunk]

No, you are talking about bigots. If any of her readers stop reading her books just because of this, they're bigots. It's as simple as that.

Not only that, they're missing out on great literature for the most inane of reasons.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I can't believe some people would stop reading her books because of this. If anything I would be even more impressed by her integrity and her refusal to underestimate her audience.

 

[Diemen]

and i love what JK's attitude seems to be: fuck 'em.

Which is exactly the right attitude to take.

 

[U2girl]

honestly, no. homophobia aside (and, honestly, i don't think she'd want to have such idiots as readers anyway), it's totally bogus to have an "opinion" on the backstory of the character. it's like having an opinion the fact that Harry has glasses.

Well, bogus or not, people will have different opinions (or reactions, if you prefer) to this particular bit of backstory. After all, it carries more weight than, say, the hero of the story wearing glasses.

I wish none of her readers (ie, the fanbase that has all 7 books and goes on sites etc...) wouldn't react negatively but some do, and I just think it's too bad that the story that got millions of young people into reading again will not be read anymore (in some cases) or not even be read at all with some kid in, say, 2015: "Can I read/buy HP, Mum/Dad?" "No, because of Dumbledore". Or, in a more near future, that kids that liked the books may be banned from watching the last two movies. See what I mean ? I know the adults that were anti-Potter from day one will stil dislike it, I just think there is a considerable crack coming between fans, present and potential/future. It's not about sales.

Vintage Punk: yes, she answered other questions, but to be fair, none had quote the major impact of this answer. While "did he ever fall in love" and "did he ever find true love" isn't the same, the answer could, then, be "yes", then explain the details in the encyclopedia.

 

[phillyfan26]

Again, we should base decisions off the ignorant?

Hasn't it been proven by book banning that kids are more interested in reading books they aren't allowed to, anyway?

 

[Diemen]

"Can I read/buy HP, Mum/Dad?" "No, because of Dumbledore". Or, in a more near future, that kids that liked the books may be banned from watching the last two movies.

And again, any parent who forbids their child from reading or seeing the movie because of this is a bigot to begin with, so I'm sure JK won't shed too many tears over the lost sales.

 

[VintagePunk]

Vintage Punk: yes, she answered other questions, but to be fair, none had quote the major impact of this answer. While "did he ever fall in love" and "did he ever find true love" isn't the same, the answer could, then, be "yes", then explain the details in the encyclopedia.

Again, her simply replying "yes" to the question without elaboration would go against her M.O. since the book was published. Since that time, she has seemed quite eager to share information when asked about characters, plot lines, or her writing process. Why should the information about Dumbledore be an exception?

I can't bring myself to worry about those who are so narrow-minded that they wouldn't read the book because of this, and I suspect JK feels the same way. It's their loss.

 

[Irvine511]

Or, in a more near future, that kids that liked the books may be banned from watching the last two movies. See what I mean ? I know the adults that were anti-Potter from day one will stil dislike it, I just think there is a considerable crack coming between fans, present and potential/future. It's not about sales.

because the best way to combat prejudice is to run away from confrontation and try not to upset the apple cart.

 

[Diemen]

Vintage Punk: yes, she answered other questions, but to be fair, none had quote the major impact of this answer. While "did he ever fall in love" and "did he ever find true love" isn't the same, the answer could, then, be "yes", then explain the details in the encyclopedia.

Why should she not give the question a full answer in person? Because of the ignorant, bigotted and/or uninformed? How are we as a society going to progress if we constantly cater to the bigots?

And where do you draw the line? Should authors also not admit that their characters are minorities? Surely there are some bigots who would refuse to buy a book if it's main character was black, mexican, asian, etc... Stop writing characters that have interracial marriages as well, right?

This line of thinking - this, 'she shouldn't say things because the ignorant will take offense' is just completely irrational.

 

[BVS]

Well, bogus or not, people will have different opinions (or reactions, if you prefer) to this particular bit of backstory. After all, it carries more weight than, say, the hero of the story wearing glasses.

I wish none of her readers (ie, the fanbase that has all 7 books and goes on sites etc...) wouldn't react negatively but some do, and I just think it's too bad that the story that got millions of young people into reading again will not be read anymore (in some cases) or not even be read at all with some kid in, say, 2015: "Can I read/buy HP, Mum/Dad?" "No, because of Dumbledore". Or, in a more near future, that kids that liked the books may be banned from watching the last two movies. See what I mean ? I know the adults that were anti-Potter from day one will stil dislike it, I just think there is a considerable crack coming between fans, present and potential/future. It's not about sales.

So send them back to the closet in order to appease those that can't handle it?

Basically you and BEB believe in the same thing.

I don't think she'll have any problem with future readers. Society is slowing growing up, yes there will always be the cc's don't read anything Dobson didn't write, but honestly I don't think she cares. As far as current readers, I'm sure a few parents may not buy the book for kids, but if their kids are hooked they'll read it, they'll find a way. Like I said, most kids don't care.

Screw appeasing the bigots!

 

[U2girl]

And again, any parent who forbids their child from reading or seeing the movie because of this is a bigot to begin with, so I'm sure JK won't shed too many tears over the lost sales.

So forget the child too ?

If a parent says "I don't want to read this", that is their choice, however ignorant it may be, it just bothers me the child will get cut out too, and not even be given a chance. That's all.

 

[BVS]

So forget the child too ?

If a parent says "I don't want to read this", that is their choice, however ignorant it may be, it just bothers me the child will get cut out too, and not even be given a chance. That's all.

There's libraries or they will find a way to borrow the book, come on weren't you ever a kid?

 

[Irvine511]

So forget the child too ?

If a parent says "I don't want to read this", that is their choice, however ignorant it may be, it just bothers me the child will get cut out too, and not even be given a chance. That's all.

and then the child will grow up, and get a credit card, and order it from Amazon, and read it to see what she's been missing all these years.



the best way to make a child want something is to tell her she can't have it.

 

[corianderstem]

I used to buy Harlequin romances from the local Goodwill as a teen, and hide them under my mattress.

Mom didn't want me reading them, I read them anyway, and I turned out just fine. The sex scenes didn't make me into some wanton harlot.

(Neither did listening to Madonna's "Like a Virgin." When my mom objected to my buying a copy of the 45, I rolled my eyes and told her I only liked it for the beat. )

Anyway, to the topic at hand, if the kid wants to read it, they will find a way to read it, despite what their parents say. Which is what they should do. God forbid some child believes that something they read will turn them evil. Or - worse - teh gay!!!

 

[phillyfan26]

So forget the child too ?

If a parent says "I don't want to read this", that is their choice, however ignorant it may be, it just bothers me the child will get cut out too, and not even be given a chance. That's all.

Hasn't it been proven by book banning that kids are more interested in reading books they aren't allowed to, anyway?

 

[U2girl]

Irvine: and until they grow up ? Maybe HP won't excite them anymore once they read it.

Bonovoxsupastar and phillyfan: that may be, but aren't you missing the parent (control) factor ?