Sexuality! and Poor Writing! - JKR's Mistake

[sistermagpie]

> bboyminn:
> 
> Well, I'm taking a different approach too. One thing people 
> keep forgetting is that Dumbledore is well over 100 years old,
> I think he is past the raging hormones and compelling sexual
> urges stage of life.
> 
> Exactly how should a 120 year old man express his gayness in
> the story? What relevant statement could have been made that
> would have fit with the story as it stands. Remember this
> is not Dumbledore's story, it's Harry's. 
> 
> Also, Dumbledore being gay is only very mildly relevant to 
> the story, and is, in fact, completely unnecessary. 
> 
> JKR answered a question about off-page backstory, and I 
> think off-page is exactly where it should be. I'm sure
> hundreds of Slash writers would be delighted to discover
> that in the backstory, Sirius and Remus were lovers, but
> delighted as they may be, it has nothing to do with 
> Harry's story, and it is Harry's story that we are here to
> read. 

Magpie:
Actually, I quibble with this. It may be true but it's no reason for 
not putting it in the story. The fact is that the relationship 
between Sirius and Remus and Dumbledore and Grindelwald were both 
important to the story, so there's no reason to isolate the romantic 
parts (if they existed) as being off-limits. Harry has witnessed 
plenty of romance that wasn't really part of his story. It's just 
there because it's there.

I realize that of course there's a balance--it sometimes happens 
that an author knows something but just never finds a way to put it 
in smoothly so it stays out. That's what people refer to when they 
imagine clunky scenes where Dumbledore suddenly says, "Btw, Harry, I 
like dudes!" And it's hard in looking at the story as it is to see 
any place where she would do this with Dumbledore's sexuality--but I 
think that's because it's not there to begin with. I mean, of course 
there's no place for it since it isn't there. But she does find 
plenty of places to just stick in people having romantic lives or 
mentioning past romances, so one can't say that she *couldn't* put 
it in, or that she was following any sort of rules she'd set out by 
leaving it out. 

The story doesn't suffer for leaving this information about 
Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald out. It really doesn't 
add anything because it was already presented in a complete way in 
the story. It becomes more like adding something like Barty Crouch 
Jr. being illegitimate--it does change the story and the dynamic, 
but it's not automatically better or more logical than the Jr./Sr. 
dynamic we have in the book already. It's kind of a "what if," but 
one that doesn't contradict the canon as it stands.
 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Once again, I say, people can't both want to know and not
> want to know. People definitely do want to hear JKR's 
> vision and version of both the back story and the front
> story. That's why they ask questions. I have tons of 
> question I would like to know the answer to, for example,
> how does business work in the wizard world? Do the muggle
> and magic world interchange goods and services through 
> intermediaries? Do magic-aware muggle green grocers sell
> fruits and vegetables into the wizard world? ..and many
> more business related questions. 
> 
> But, if I ask, and don't like the answer, is that my fault
> or JKR's? 

Magpie:
And of course, often it's not a case of the person asking the 
question not liking the answer, it's that we're talking about 
different people. I want to know the answers to questions *I* want 
to ask (if I had any to ask--I'm fine not getting any answers to 
anything), but I don't necessarily want to know the answer to 
somebody else's question. I just get it because somebody else asked 
it.

-m