World Enough and Time

My first thought: I wish she'd made the announcement about Sirius Black and Remus Lupin. That would have meant a lot more to me. Though admirable, Dumbledore was old, and not one of the characters for readers to identify with.

I think this is irrelevant. Surely it's more significant that this is one of the major authority figures? It's not about providing characters for readers to get off on. Yes, he's old – but why should gay characters have to be young and beautiful? (There's enough trouble with this tyranny of ageism/appearance in the gay male world anyway, as among straight women!) He's in a position of power, and in a profession in which (still) far too many people run in horror at the idea of gay people working, because they automatically associate it with them taking advantage of pupils.

It isn't so rare for gay characters in stories to be sidelined, or tragic, or dead, or to have evil lovers.

And ditto with straight characters…

From:

Surely it's more significant that this is one of the major authority figures?

My friends were making that point last night. Perhaps that's important, too. I tend to think in terms of the personal/individual rather than the societal. Dumbledore is not so romantic a figure - until the last book, when we see his pain and his passion. So to speak.

but why should gay characters have to be young and beautiful?

Why should they have to be sidelined? I take your point and I agree with it... perhaps my lack of appreciation for the news is that I really disliked Dumbledore through most of the series. Just an individual reaction.

ditto with straight characters…

True, but proportionately speaking, I think gay characters in fiction tend to get a worse deal, and a higher mountain of tragedy.

From:

My friends were making that point last night. Perhaps that's important, too.

I think it is. A generally popular character, in a position of power – I think that's a strong statement.

Why should they have to be sidelined?

If they're supporting characters, well, supporting characters of any orientation are. And it's a simple demographic fact: the majority of people/readers are straight, so popular fiction tends to reflect that, with straight characters dominating novels that are aimed at a straight readership.

but proportionately speaking, I think gay characters in fiction tend to get a worse deal, and a higher mountain of tragedy.

Most of the great tragic literary characters I can think of are straight. Even in Classical literature. In modern literature, overtly gay characters haven't been around all that long, and for much of the early 20C, writing about them reflected the then-prevalent view of homosexuality as a pathology. It's unreasonable, I think, to expect pre-1960s writers to reflect a more modern attitude to it as just part of life's rich variety.

From:

Most of the great tragic literary characters I can think of are straight.

Most of the great literary characters I can think of are straight, period. Most of the gay characters in literature up to maybe ten years ago had tragic stories. Even now - Brokeback Mountain isn't a happy tale.

It's unreasonable, I think, to expect pre-1960s writers to reflect a more modern attitude to it as just part of life's rich variety.

I don't expect it, but I like it when/if it happens. I do expect more from a writer of 2007. Including from Rowling, and what I got from her was fine. This isn't her issue, and there's no reason it should be - but I have my own preferences in the matter. She's welcome to write what she writes, just as I can wish it were otherwise.

But I think we've a way to go, sociologically speaking.

From:

Most of the great literary characters I can think of are straight, period. Most of the gay characters in literature up to maybe ten years ago had tragic stories. Even now - Brokeback Mountain isn't a happy tale.

But then, the characters are not living in a gay-friendly environment. Again, the hard fact is that in many places and social circles, it is still difficult and (in some cases) downright physically dangerous to be gay. Brokeback reflects that: it's set in a homophobic, macho environment. One wouldn't expect a novel about, say, Black life in the pre-Civil Rights era or about women in Afghanistan to be all sunshine-and-laughter-and-happy-endings. It would be historically dishonest to gloss over the persecution, the struggles and the sacrifices that still go on in many places.

I remember a similar discussion at university c 1985, at the Gay & Lesbian Awareness Society. We were organising a film festival with the Film Society, and at that time, some people were obsessed with the idea of "positive images", so anything that related to the persecution of gay people & c., was considered off-message. I felt this was deeply dishonest and immature. It was the era of Thatcherite homophobic legislation (Section 2A/Section 28), and the age of consent was still unequal for men, but we were supposed to pretend that the struggle was over and the war for equality was won?

I don't expect it, but I like it when/if it happens. I do expect more from a writer of 2007. Including from Rowling, and what I got from her was fine. This isn't her issue, and there's no reason it should be - but I have my own preferences in the matter. She's welcome to write what she writes, just as I can wish it were otherwise.

Another issue is Dumbledore's age. He's a 19C man - same generation as Wilde, at my guess. For most of his long lifespan (until 1967, assuming UK wizard law mirrored UK muggle law on this), practising his sexuality would have been illegal.

From:

I agree with all you say, which is pretty much my point. We have a world full of literature that reflects the attitudes of the past. I understand why. I'd like to see more material that reflects the more positive present attitude.

This is like that quote from a few days about 'creating the future'. I want to see something socially better than recreating the past.

From:

I'd like to see more material that reflects the more positive present attitude.

But I think there's a risk there of complacency. Because we are lucky to live in generally accepting cultures (or sections of cultures), we can pretend that "everything in the garden is rosy", that all the battles have been won. But they haven't. It's still a struggle to be a gay man or woman in an Evangelical Christian community, or the Muslim community, or Afro-Caribbean community. Do we ignore this because it's not "positive"? There's also the fact that conflict and tragedy generally make for more interesting fiction.

From:

Good heavens, I don't mind seeing the conflict! And plenty of it. No, I just mean I'd like the occasional story that is more romantic than tragic, more positive than depressing, and we don't get much of that. I know plenty of happy gay and bi people, most of whom have had a hard time, one way or another, before they achieved happiness.

From:

Correction: given when the HP books are set, Dumbledore is probably a few years older than Wilde; but he's still basically a Victorian.

From:

This was one of the things I was thinking of when I referred to Dumbledore as 'old'.

From:

Most of the gay characters in literature up to maybe ten years ago had tragic stories.

Another issue in this (overtly or not) in the gay male community has been the impact of AIDS – which cast a tragic shadow over many lives.

From:

Sadly true.

From:

I think for me the sexuality of most of these characters doesn't matter for the story, so she had no reason to mention it. I do understand that like most writers she thinks of her characters' lives beyond the story she's writing, so when a fan asks about a character's personal life, she may then inform them of details.

I never explicitly said 'wow Dumbledore is gay,' but much in the text made me think he was probably bi or possibly gay, certainly effeminate. It's not so much a surprise as I think it's just fun to hear.

From:

the sexuality of most of these characters doesn't matter for the story, so she had no reason to mention it

I agree, and I have no problem with that.

It's not so much a surprise as I think it's just fun to hear.

Really, it is. For myself, I think this brings me back to an area where I do have trouble with the text. As I've said, I strongly disliked Dumbledore for six out of seven books. I would have liked him so much more if the sexual orientation had been more clear, or if I'd had more sense of the psychological issues he was wrestling with.

Now, given that the story is from Harry's point of view, I don't think there's any reason we could have had that. But it would have made a lot of difference to me.

From:

That's interesting. I know readers who are the total opposite - loved Dumbledore until the last book. They tend though to be readers who also did not like how dark the books were getting.

From:

I tend not to mind darkness - though I have a big problem with depressing endings. I loved Dumbledore in the last book, disliked him intensely up to then - because he could have helped Harry, and didn't.

I loved Snape all the way, and particularly at the end.

I thought the books started out uncomfortably dark - they start with a boy forced to live in a closet and suffer the emotional abuse of his guardians and his bullying cousin? How light is that?

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Diana Wynne Jones does as much, and more. But it affects how I read the books.

From:

I always assumed there was more to Dumbledore than we were seeing. I thought there must be a reason why he's not helping Harry. So that got me through.

Same with Snape, whom I loved.

The books never seemed super dark to me, just more adult as they went on, which seemed a natural parallel to growing up.

That's probably why #3 is still my favorite. It was somewhere in between childhood and adulthood. Harry was more mature but not quite into teenage angst yet; it was darker than the others but not quite as heavy as the later books. It was also still at a reasonable length. The books seemed too long to me later on.

I didn't find the beginning uncomfortably dark. It gave me a starting point to understand why Harry's new world at Hogwarts was so significant. It made the discovery of all the magic and destiny more felt. I was bothered by how he had to always go BACK to that house, moreso than that he started there and was so abused. At least at the beginning he didn't know any better, but to keep going back? Of course the end of the series gave me some reason for that, but it still bothered me.

From:

that got me through.

You are possibly a more forgiving reader than I am. Anyone who hurts my heroes - or fails to help them - hah! I'm judgemental.

Same with Snape, whom I loved.

Yes. I loved Snape from the beginning, and never faltered. Mind you, I never saw him as hurting Harry in the way Dumbledore was, even by inaction. He was in no position to change Harry's circumstances, na dhe had clear reasons for his secrecies. He was verbally tough on him, but he was verbally tough on everyone. It wasn't like the Dursley's, putting Harry down as a personal thing.

That's probably why #3 is still my favorite.

Uh... is that Azkaban? If so, it's my favourite, too - at least, it was up till the last one. There I really, really liked the ending. But not the plot so much: I thought the whole middle part of the book went nowhere. So, yes, Azkaban is my favourite.

From:

Yes, Azkaban. :)

And yes, I might be a more forgiving reader! But maybe if this was Niccolo we were talking about (or Eden, god forbid) less so.

Actually I love some characters that are quite unhelpful and cruel to Eden... maybe that's because I'm writing it?

From:

maybe if this was Niccolo we were talking about (or Eden, god forbid) less so.

Yes - you know how I bitterly hate any character who dares to be unkind to Lymond! While I adore characters like Gideon, Kate, and Archie, who are kind to him.

I love some characters that are quite unhelpful and cruel to Eden... maybe that's because I'm writing it?

Maybe. You have control.

And my dislike of a character doesn't necessarily affect my liking or disliking of the work in question. And there are plenty of books and movies where I prefer the villain to the hero - ! (Not usually very good ones, though.)

From:

"Maybe. You have control."

Maybe. I think also because those characters are still some part of me, I can't completely hate them. Also, I feel I know them better than I might know a 'cruel' character in a book I'm reading. And maybe I just look forward to Eden kicking their ass.

From:

I feel I know them better than I might know a 'cruel' character in a book I'm reading.

That helps. I rather enjoy creating villains, and writing them. I imagine actors who play villains feel the same.

maybe I just look forward to Eden kicking their ass.

So satisfying!

From:

Yes, many actors say their favorite characters to play are villains!

From:

star-momma.livejournal.com

Agreed on all points. And, honestly, Sirius & Remus are cannon so far as I'm concerned. Remus' problems with Tonks had not a damn thing to do with his being a werewolf. He'd stumbled into a relationship because he was hurt over losing Sirius, and he had no idea how to get out. THAT's what freaked him out.

...anyway. heh

From:

Sirius & Remus are canon so far as I'm concerned.

Yes, I agree absolutely!

I'm happy to think Remus loved both Sirius and Tonks. Why not? I was rather fond of them both myself.

From:

star-momma.livejournal.com

I'm very, very fond of Tonks, the relationship between Remus and Tonks always just seemed a bit forced to me :)

From: