Outing a fictitious character after a book series is done has about the same worth as a posthumous celebrity/public figure’s outing–NONE.

It’s a sad commentary on the GLBT community if we are reduced to needing fictitious characters and celebrities to validate our existence and to effect change in our situation.

Change will begin with each individual BEING who we have been waiting for. It’s plain we are never going to have our equivalent of Martin Luther King, Jr., so each of us has to be his/her/hir own Dr. King.

Glitter sucks. Especially when you sell in a store where glitter is used liberally on the home decor items.
Glitter on your hands, glitter on your face.

The Harry Potter series is one of the most popular children’s books series there has ever been. For Rowling to make such a statement publicly is HUGE and can’t be underestimated as just an “outing” of a fictional character.

In many ways she is saying: “gay people are a critically important part of my world.” It’s the creator of the fiction saying one of the major protagonists is gay. Remember he’s also the headmaster of a children’s school.

The sad reality is that in many places still in the United States, school districts (who adore the Potter Books and their ability to encourage children to read) will fire a teacher based on their sexual orientation. So hopefully this will at least make them rethink their position on the issue.

Brain Fork said:

David, is “hir” a mainstream pronoun or something you made up? Either way, that’s pretty creative.

David answers:

Neither of the above. I first came across it in a non-canon Star Trek novel, Killing Time. It was used to reference a hermaphroditic character. I think there have been some attempts to make the use more mainstream, but with practically no success.

Marc says:

I’d like you to please consider that the HP books have entertained and inspired millions of readers and movie goers and that one should never underestimate the power of entertainment to change people’s lives.

David answers:

I have never underestimated this. I am saying that waiting until after the book series was published, movie rights sold, and the books are in millions of childrens’ hands is the coward’s way of trying to show inclusion. If it was so important to her that she represent GLBT characters in her stories, then why did she not write in a partner for Dumbledore?

Marc says:

You may never have an equivalent of MLK but there are a lot of people out there that have the potential to be one, please don’t crap on that either. That type of thinking will just hold us back.

David answers:

Dont’ put words in my mouth. I am not negating the possibility of there being a GLBT equivalent of MLK. I am saying that we all have the possibility to be an MLK in our own lives. We need to stop looking outside ourselves for validation and rescue and realize that we have the hero/heroine inside of us (kinda like the Mariah Carey song), and that nobody is going to do it for ourselves.

Fausto says:

The Harry Potter series is one of the most popular children’s books series there has ever been. For Rowling to make such a statement publicly is HUGE and can’t be underestimated as just an “outing” of a fictional character.

In many ways she is saying: “gay people are a critically important part of my world.” It’s the creator of the fiction saying one of the major protagonists is gay. Remember he’s also the headmaster of a children’s school.

David answers:

I will say it again: she waited until the entire series was done, movie rights sold, and the books were in the hands of millions of children before she made such an statement. We were an afterthought. She never presented the character as gay, so that she has revealed his orientation after the fact is of no use to us.

Fausto says:

The sad reality is that in many places still in the United States, school districts (who adore the Potter Books and their ability to encourage children to read) will fire a teacher based on their sexual orientation. So hopefully this will at least make them rethink their position on the issue.

David answers:

With a partner who is a teacher in such a school system, I am well aware of this. The same mentality that thinks that any gay teacher is automatically going to be a threat to kids is the same mentality that seeks to ban the Harry Potter books because they claim that they are “teaching a religion” to children. Outing Dumbledore after the fact is not going to make anybody rethink their position on the issue. Only teachers who do a good job and set themselves up as a good example and role model and only open-minded administrators who are willing to defend that teacher to the death will change any minds.

David- Better late than never!

Those are all good points, but I’m still happy that J.K. outed one of her main characters. I would have liked to see the character showing some of his gay side in the books, but oh well.

Baby steps! Listen to the podcast to hear about some of the other reasons we think J.K. outed Dumbledore. Hint: it’s her lawsuit.

Too bad it wasn’t Harry…that would have really set off a fire storm.

Sure the series is over (but for the movies), and maybe knowing Dumbledore was gay before might have made a slightly less insignificant difference, but the point isn’t that a fictional character is gay…it’s that an entire audience APPLAUDED upon learning he was gay.

That’s a start. They didn’t riot. They didn’t protest. They didn’t start burning their books.

The next step would be an entire audience being indifferent and the revelation NOT being newsworthy.

I didn’t get a chance to finish the show yesterday. So this morning I come into the office and was plugging my iPod into my speakers and didn’t realize that a) my speakers and iPod were up full blast and b) I had accidentally turned it on. So for a brief shining moment everyone in my entire office (and probably the office next door) heard the booming voice of Amanda Steinstein say,”…sitting there with their assholes puckering”. LOL!

what about that girl with the glasses from Scooby-Doo, she is soooooo gay

I am not sure about there being no subtext in the book itself - I did wonder a little bit about DD’s intense friendship with this Grindenwald (or some such) even as I read the book, before she made the announcement. It didn’t make complete sense without assuming there was something more than just a friendship going on. In a way I imagine hearing it stated so matter-of-fact afterwards will get the under the homophobes skin more, after reading all the seven books and having been ‘duped’ into really caring about what turns out to be a gay character.

What a nut job. This guy’s essay is akin to a small child plugging their ears and going “la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la”.

John Mark Reynolds writes, “At this point it is too late for Rowling to change the text. She cannot decide to kill Harry now . . . or announce that Harry is actually a vampire, a member of the Tory party, or antidisestablishmentarian. She wrote what she wrote and now it belongs to us.”

Um, hate to break it to you dumbass but Rawling can say whatever the hell she wants to say about her characters, they are hers. And she has no obligation to you or anyone else to write, do or say anything regarding the characters. She could put out a short story about Dumbledore’s romantic interest tomorrow and there you go, the story will be officially woven into the Potter mythos. And who are you to say she has no right to say something about her own work? It’s HER WORK! Geeze. That’s like saying all those love songs Elton John sang can’t be used for gay men to sing to each other because at the time he wasn’t out.

Thanks for posting this Brain Fork, I needed something to get me riled up for today. LOL!

No problem Pup. Though I still think he makes a valid point about the issue. They are her characters, yes, but the story has been written and J.K. saying that Dumbledore is gay is now just her opinion. If she wrote the spin off you’re mentioned then it would become a matter of fact.

On a side note, I read up on the details to the back story… that would make an effing great book!

I understand what you are saying, Pup, and I like the whole idea of experiencing the creative process–whether myself or vicariously. To give you an idea, I watch all the special features on every DVD I buy.

I enjoy and appreciate what goes into the final product, but in the end, the final product is what the author/artist chose to release to the world. A later interpolation is just that–an interpolation.

ps i LOVE twitter!

http://www.faguloz.com