How many lovers had Albus Dumbledore?

[axordil]

That's an in-joke if you've ever studied literature--there was a famous (in the field) essay entitled "How Many Children Had Lady Macbeth" that deals with the same question, namely, when does something you never actually see on the stage or the page matter, and can some questions about such EVER really be applied to fictional characters? I'm referring to JKR's recent answer to a question concerning the headmaster's sexuality in which she revealed that Dumbledore was, in fact, gay.

Does that matter? Well, it explains some things and confirms some hints given. But does it matter in terms of how one approaches the books? And why? And is it, for lack of a better word, fair for an author to discuss things that don't actually appear in their works?

It is certainly true that a class of information floats around in a writer's head during the process that informs what shows up on the screen/paper without ever actually overtly appearing there. Backstory elements, details, whatever hooks are needed for a character to become real enough to fiddle with, they're all there.

In some cases, such as Tolkien, it's clear that such elements are the bulk of the story, the iceberg under the surface of things; this is because they are details of the world being built, the underpinnings of the mythos. But just as clearly, there are stories in which things that happen to the characters "off-stage" are fundamentally irrelevant to the story at hand. It matters that Lady Macbeth had children, if only so she could give the speech in which she says she would dash their brains out. The number of children is not so relevant. Their names are utterly irrelevant...but did they even cross Will's mind?

Rowling's world is somewhere in between Tolkien's and Shakespeare's, I think. It is not as deeply realized, for all the volumes published on it, because it is essentially the world we live in now with one permutation changed. JRRT had languages with historical etymologies that force him to write stories to explain words; Rowling has fake Latin. That doesn't mean her work is bad, just that the two had vastly different motivations and methods for their works. It does mean, though, that there's more unwritten nous swimming around in relation to her creation than Macbeth, or A Farewell to Arms, or David Copperfield. And if she's asked about it...well, it would be hard to demur for anyone.

At any rate, it's an interesting question. How do people feel about this case in particular or the issue in general?

[Maria]

Sexuality is as irrelevant to Albus Dumbledore as it is to Gandalf. It is not a part of what makes a wizard powerful and is thus unimportant to any of the stories and I'm glad she left it out.

[Crucifer]

Did she though?

Wasn't he blinded to Grindelwalds not very nice motives etc. by his love for him, not as a friend, but because he was, in every sense of the world, in love with him. Dumbledore himself states that Love is the most powerful of all magics. If he himself had been heterosexual, the whole Grindelwald thing may never have happened, as his interest would have gone no further than academic, and he would quickly have seen Grindelwalds motives.

[Faramond]

Well, clearly up until book 7, Dumbledore's sexuality was completely irrelevant. He was essentially asexual as far as any reader knew. Like McGonagal.

I don't really care that much for the being in love with Grindlewald angle. Dumbledore's real downfall was his lust for the Deathly Hallows. That's what was important, especially in parallel with Harry getting off track by lusting after the Hallows himself. The whole thing with being in love with Grindlewald sort of muddies the picture there.

Does the wizarding-world allow same-sex marriage?

[themary]

That would be a question for the Wizengamot Faramond

I don't think it matters what Dumbledore's sexual preference is but I think it's pretty cool that JKR is sharing these things. She could very easily make other books chronicling this stuff and slap a price tag on it. Yes, I've heard she's gonna make an encyclopedia but it's still cool to hear where she thought the characters went and with whom.

I just hope some twisted dare I say religious fanatics don't think Dumbledore acted in an inappropriate manner with Harry now that his sexuality has been revealed because for some reason when you mention homosexuality the word abuse ends up popping up. I suppose we can thank the Catholic church for that one. But I digress .

[axordil]

I would say that a character's sexuality is relevant insofar as it affects the story...and as Faramond notes, up until the last book, it didn't, in this case. Now, whether that's sloppy plotting on JKR's part or something else is an open question, because so far as know she hasn't revealed whether that relationship and its effect on the plot was in her mind from early on or was a late addition. If she's smart, she never will. And if she does, I don't know if I consider her a trustworthy narrator of her own writing process.

Remember, authors lie for money.

[Primula Baggins]

And they don't always know when they first knew what they know.

She could have had the bare plot facts of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's friendship in her mind from the start, and only realized recently what that relationship actually was. I say "realized" because I've heard writers say that's how it feels: the connection that was always there but never consciously laid in place, that you suddenly just see for what it has to be.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I've heard writers say that's how it feels: the connection that was always there but never consciously laid in place, that you suddenly just see for what it has to be.

Have you been talking to yourself again?

[axordil]

Prim's description is correct: sometimes something just pops out at you after being in operation for a while. The ability to look back and realize that after the fact, though, as opposed to doing some mental backfill ("Really, I had it planned from the start!") is not always present in authors.

And sometimes one doesn't realize something about a character or situation until well into revisions. Then one must decide whether to go back through and accentuate it, or take it out, or do nothing--and the result can be a very different story.

[Primula Baggins]

Voronwë, Yes, it's certainly happened to me, too.

The other thing I've observed about these insights is that they usually do greatly strengthen the story, so I'm not inclined to argue with one when it arrives. In my first (unpublished) novel it led me to kill a particular character, and people who've read it are so upset by the death that I'm sure it was the right thing to do.

If JKR is like that, she was probably also unwilling to argue with the idea, despite the fuss it's caused.

(Things like this aren't writerly whims or calculation, or "the characters taking over the story." It feels entirely different, like discovering something that was always true. And it doesn't happen until you've been writing for quite a while, from what I've seen.)

[axordil]

and people who've read it are so upset by the death that I'm sure it was the right thing to do

Did I ever tell you about the agent who said she couldn't represent me because thinking about the central motif of my novel made her physically ill?

I think of her whenever I see Alice Siebold on the bestseller list.

But I think that if you are writing about people, and you have any understanding of people, that when working up a character you can work either from the outside in or the inside out with equal facility. The kind of discovery you're talking about is an outside-in thing, I think, and I have run into it myself.

[Primula Baggins]

Well, I think SF favors the outside-in approach. The story has to come from ideas even more than from characters; I don't think it works as well to start with fascinating characters and retrofit an idea to them. At least, in that situation I wouldn't choose to write a genre book; the SFnal elements would feel pasted on.

I wonder if that isn't one reason SF by serious literary writers often seems shaky as SF (even if the book is otherwise excellent): the writer takes a non-genre approach, and in the end the genre trappings feel like trappings.

[axordil]

Oh, I understand. And one can write idea-driven fiction that's NOT in a genre, and yet have it FEEL as if it should be, despite the utter lack of trappings whatsoever.

[TheWagner]

Well, clearly up until book 7, Dumbledore's sexuality was completely irrelevant. He was essentially asexual as far as any reader knew. Like McGonagal.

Well, Harry is the sole protagonist: and as a teenager, anyone over (say) 30 would seem "asexual" to him. You just don't think about "old people" doing "stuff" at that age. That would like (ugh!) thinking about your parents! BLEAH!!!!

The whole thing with being in love with Grindlewald sort of muddies the picture there.

Not really: it explains why Dumbledore pretended to himself that Grindelwald wanted the Stone for reasons other than armies of Inferi. Overlooking major flaws in a romantic interest is hardly unique to homosexuals!

Does the wizarding-world allow same-sex marriage?

We have no idea! However, the wizarding world seems to be very progressive: witness, for example, the fact that women hold places of high power, and have held posts as important as Minister of Magic centuries ago, when Muggle women in England were basically trade items. Also, wizards would have been faster to take the emphasis off of families and place it on contributing to society a lot faster because their need for secrecy put them at "overpopulated" much earlier than Muggles were. Still, look at Europe today: it is badly overpopulated, and one result is that the birth-rate has plummeted. The emphasis is not on families, but on society: and, correspondingly, homosexuality is generally tolerated.

Ah, but here is the kicker: if Hermione Granger does not allow gays to own house-elfs, is she a bigot?

[Anduril]

TIME article by John Cloud about the topic... where I found:

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.

[Primula Baggins]

What an infuriating statement, Anduril.

There seem to be a lot of people around these days, though, who can't believe it's possible that any character or event in any book can ever simply Not Be About Sex.

It does leave me mildly curious what those people's actual lives are like; most of us can talk to the clerk at the grocery store, have lunch with a friend, call Aunt Susan, etc., without a pulsing undercurrent of any kind of eroticism. Why, I believe some people actually go for an hour or more without once wishing they could shag somebody. I realize that this may sound absurd in the twenty-first century, but I'll say it anyway: there may occasionally be more important things to think about.

[axordil]

Why, I believe some people actually go for an hour or more without once wishing they could shag somebody.

While awake?

[Primula Baggins]

Perhaps I should have said "some women."