HP-Dumbledore was gay?

[DysPerDis]

Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay (http://www.newsweek.com/id/50787/page/1)

Alright people, by a show of hands, who saw that coming?

So, does this change anyone's opinions on the books? Do you see a massive outing of characters in popular fiction in the future? Do you feel like it was a ploy to appease the GLBT crowd and stir up controversy?

[Vaikyuko]

Solely to stir up controversy and whatnot, even if she did originally plan it. After all, what other reason was there to announce it NOW, after the book's been out for several months? Just capitalizing on the popularity.

That said, good lord. She knows how to make her books suck even more. Dumbledore is gay now? W. T. F.

[Soluzar]

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in the book, it didn't happen. That applies to any book of any kind. It's just not there, and nothing she can say or do can put it there. I can read the books, and find no statement to that effect. Once you have written your book, you lose the ability to make changes to it, and your input is not needed. You have the ability to choose what you're going to put in there while you're writing it. Once it's a finished work, anything you didn't put in is just not present. Too bad, so sad...

[ecchi]

She just made that up! It was never even mentioned by the slightest in the book that Dumbledore had "love" feelings towards Grindelwald. It was said that he had deep friendship with Grindelwald because he was delighted to talk to someone of his intelligence when he was stuck home with his siblings. I just lost all my respect for Rowling after this...

[Lord Timaeus]

Great, cue the squealing Slash writers and Suethors. Although considering the epilogue, does the name Albus Severus mean that Dumbledore/Snape is Rowling's OTP?

[tenshi_a]

Haha, that looks like a classic case of "I never really thought about it, better quickly make up something... oops... everyone's taking this seriously, aren't they?"

...and I bet the question was only ever asked because someone only wants to write a fanfic...

[GreatNekoKoneko]

...ooh. he looks tasty ...

[earsofdoom]

Way to jump on the bandwagon Rowling, instead of trying to write a new book she is trying to get horney slash fans to buy her existing one.

[max payne]

I personally think it was just a joke since afterward she said "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy." That just makes it sound like she's taking the piss.

[Leader Desslock]

I took it as a joke, but on the outside chance she was serious, it's no more relevant than if she'd have said that Lupin was a Freemason. She might well have thought these things while writing the series, but in both cases, there's nothing in the novels to substantiate the claims. They are therefore both non-canon thoughts and therefore irrelevant.

As Soluzar said, if you want it in the novels, you gotta put it in there. Or to borrow a common internet sentiment, "words or it didn't happen".

[Alice Catherine]

Sellout/10 IMO.

[Jae Hoon]

Just a publicity stunt for her mediocre books.

[Ariel Tsuki]

As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't in the book, it didn't happen. That applies to any book of any kind. It's just not there, and nothing she can say or do can put it there. I can read the books, and find no statement to that effect. Once you have written your book, you lose the ability to make changes to it, and your input is not needed. You have the ability to choose what you're going to put in there while you're writing it. Once it's a finished work, anything you didn't put in is just not present. Too bad, so sad...

But it's still canon if the author herself says so EVEN if it wasn't in the book itself. I mean, many authors do that, for example in Death Note, what happens to Misa after the ending of the manga is never mentioned but Ohba said it in the fanbook, does it make it non-canon? No. It just wasn't in the manga format.

While it does seem opportunistic to me, we don't have concrete proof she did up in the fly. There is a good reason why she never mentioned it: Harry Potter is a children's fiction series and most parents would be pissed that there is a gay character in the books. Or she didn't want people to change their view about Dumbledore during the story. You can still read the books without thinking about that he's gay anyway.

But all in all, I enjoyed a good couple of rounds of "LOLwut?" finding out about this last night. I knew it would water down to non-slash fans saying, "NO!" and slash fans saying, "Hell YES!".

Ahhh, life is one funny thing indeed.

[earsofdoom]

But it's still canon if the author herself says so EVEN if it wasn't in the book itself. I mean, many authors do that, for example in Death Note, what happens to Misa after the ending of the manga is never mentioned but Ohba said it in the fanbook, does it make it non-canon? No. It just wasn't in the manga format.

I've bolded the important part, Rowling never released a fanbook she just said "He's gay" verbally. by next week she could change her mind and say "He's straight" and it wouldn't retcon anything becouse there is no existing material about dumbledore being gay.


While it does seem opportunistic to me, we don't have concrete proof she did up in the fly. There is a good reason why she never mentioned it: Harry Potter is a children's fiction series and most parents would be pissed that there is a gay character in the books. Or she didn't want people to change their view about Dumbledore during the story. You can still read the books without thinking about that he's gay anyway.


The fact that it has no impact on the story or events that happened at all pretty much proves she did it up on the fly.

[Ariel Tsuki]

I've bolded the important part, Rowling never released a fanbook she just said "He's gay" verbally. by next week she could change her mind and say "He's straight" and it wouldn't retcon anything becouse there is no existing material about dumbledore being gay.

Maybe, but it's her work and her say, which makes it canon, despite it not being in the books. I would count it as much as authenticity as a fanbook, which discusses certain things that are not discussed in the actual story itself. You can change stuff from the fanbook as well if you want too.


The fact that it has no impact on the story or events that happened at all pretty much proves she did it up on the fly.

Actually there was something mentioned that during the shooting for the Half-Blood Prince, the director was going to add something in lieu that Dumbledore once fancied a girl and Rowling stopped him and told him the truth about Dumbledore.

But in the end, it IS her work, whether she made it up on the spot or not, it doesn't make it less canon.

[Soluzar]

But it's still canon if the author herself says so EVEN if it wasn't in the book itself.
I've heard that notion before, and it didn't impress me then. It doesn't really impress me now. It can be fun to know what the author was thinking at the time they wrote their story, but if it's not in the books... it's just not there. Please find the lines in a book where this is brought to light, and I will concede that it exists in the Harry Potter novels.

What I'm trying to say is that the experience of reading the books does not include this information. You can sit down and read the series from beginning to end and not find anything about this particular topic. It just so happens that Ms. Rowling claims to have written the books with that intention in mind, but unless she adequately expressed that intention through the medium of her writing, it doesn't really matter.

Let us suppose for a second that the Harry Potter novels are to be considered classics by the literary critics of the future. Stand aside, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Charles ****ens, William Shakespeare, and Make way for Joanne Rowling. Let us assume this unlikely scenario to be the case. It seems highly unlikely that this particular throwaway remark will be archived and made known to all. We don't know the first think about Shakespeare's intentions in the writing of his plays, for example.

They will study the words that were printed on the page of the books, and if they deem that Albus Dumbledore was portrayed as being homosexual, that will be on the basis of the books themselves. Equally if they should deem him to have been portrayed as heterosexual, that will be on the basis of the books themselves.

That's just how things are done at the level of serious literary criticism. If you take a course, you will find that this is precisely what you will be tought. If Ms. Rowling had taken a moment to include this information in her books, either as subtext, or a footnote, or a small mention in a preface, it would be present in the finished work that she has produced. As I've previously stated, it can be interesting for some to understand what she had in mind while creating the work, but the finished work does not entirely reflect these intentions.

If an author feels moved to add to the work by making statements such as the ones in this interview, which represent their true intentions better than what they have written, then I suggest that they should perhaps have written something which did reflect their true intentions to begin with.

I don't entirely believe in the concept of canon. I believe in the work that is available. Sometimes the concept of canon can be of trifling use in sorting out which of an author's multiple and sometimes contradictory works should be read as forming a greater whole, but I certainly don't believe in canon which can originate outside published work.

[Alice Catherine]

Perhaps when she writes the Encyclopedia, she will state that he's gay and it'll be CANON and EVERYONE can shut up about it.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

Alright people, by a show of hands, who saw that coming?

Well, I did think that, that was what some of the Dumbledore related rumours were getting at (in a nudge-nudge-wink-wink-say-no-more, kind of way) but it seems pointless to make nothing of it and then proclaim it randomly after the fact...

Perhaps when she writes the Encyclopedia, she will state that he's gay and it'll be CANON and EVERYONE can shut up about it.

Or we could all shut up now. :P Don't encourage her...

[Soluzar]

Perhaps when she writes the Encyclopedia, she will state that he's gay and it'll be CANON and EVERYONE can shut up about it.
If it was at least in a published work, then it would be out there for everyone to know. I still don't think she portrayed the character as homosexual though. She just portrayed him as a man for whom sex and love was not a primary concern.

[KyubiNoKitsune]

It all makes sense now!! ^_^
That's why he was spending so much time with Harry...
Oh the possibilities for my Fantai, Harry Popo and the Legend of He Who Must Not Be Naked... This is right up there with Gandalf the Gay and the Humpits... XD XD XD :lol:

[VidelCoolGirl]

I bet she's going to open up a publishing company specifically for Dumbledore Slash fanfiction, and shes trying to get support.

[KyubiNoKitsune]

Hey, Soluzar... I may not have believed that there was such a thing as a male Viera... But it's in the Final Fantasy XII Ultimania, which means it's canon... And that makes it true... Because the Ultimania is like the Bible to us Final Fantasy Fans, and it's published by Square Enix, with interviews by the game's creators... So if the author says something is true after the fact, you just have to deal with it...
Canon = Backstory... Nothing you can do about it... I never thought Dumbledore was gay, never even suspected, but then again I have no Gaydar... :lol:
But if J.K. Rowling says he's gay, then he is gay...

[Soluzar]

Hey, Soluzar... I may not have believed that there was such a thing as a male Viera... But it's in the Final Fantasy XII Ultimania, which means it's canon... And that makes it true... Because the Ultimania is like the Bible to us Final Fantasy Fans, and it's published by Square Enix, with interviews by the game's creators... So if the author says something is true after the fact, you just have to deal with it...
Nope. I'll just read the books instead. :P

It's not in there. You can look for it if you want. Let me know if you find it.

I can't say I'm familiar with the example you gave. I quit playing FF after FFX.

[Ariel Tsuki]

I don't entirely believe in the concept of canon. I believe in the work that is available. Sometimes the concept of canon can be of trifling use in sorting out which of an author's multiple and sometimes contradictory works should be read as forming a greater whole, but I certainly don't believe in canon which can originate outside published work.

Well, that's your own opinion, but your opinion is not considered fact. The fact is that Dumbledore is gay, whether you like it or not. The universe of one's story is not restricted in one format. I mean, we considered the movies canon (although in a different sort) despite the changes. You can ignore that. Quite frankly, it doesn't effect me because Dumblerdore's awesome in the end of the day or it wasn't necessary to put it in the book since the book is really about Harry anyway, not Dumbledore's sexuality. I mean, what is to "portray" a character as gay anyway? He's past that age to engage that sort of stuff anyway (Living 100+ years does that to you).

[KyubiNoKitsune]

It doesn't have to be in the books to be true... That's the meaning of Canon... Just because you say it isn't true, does not make it so...
The author has ultimate control over their material... Theirs is the word of God in their work... You may not like it, but that's the way it is...
"And that's the way it is..." ~Walter Kronkite~

[Soluzar]

Well, that's your own opinion, but your opinion is not considered fact. The fact is that Dumbledore is gay, whether you like it or not.
Did you stop to consider just for a second that I don't care whether Dumbledore is gay? I'm sure you didn't, but that happens to be the case. I'm interested in the way this is being presented, not the content. It's of negative interest to me if Dumbledore prefers sex with men, women, dragons or house-elves.

[KatayokuのTenshi]

I've heard that notion before, and it didn't impress me then. It doesn't really impress me now.

If the author doesn’t decide what is true then who does? Some random person coming along years later and just saying "This is true!"?

...just sayin'

[Soluzar]

If the author doesn’t decide what is true then who does? Some random person coming along years later and just saying "This is true!"?
Anyone who reads the book can decide what is true. It's all there printed on the pages. You just need to read the words and understand what they say. It's that simple. What you don't need is external guff that isn't a part of the book.

What the author said is often of interest, but if they are a good author, they will have made those points apparent in their work already. It's nice when something you read in an interview adds to what is already there, but this is just adding something that wasn't apparent. He could have been homosexual, or heterosexual. It didn't matter for the purpose of the story, so it wasn't there to be seen.

[Holy Knight]

The way I see it, if it wasn't in the book, it never happened.

As long as she doesn't publish it outright, she always has the option to opt out and say "I think I prefer Dumbledore as a straight person". As long as she can change it, it ain't canon.

[Westlo]

Inc 50 thousand jokes about how Dumbledore got that ultimate wand from whats his name that starts with G.

[Ariel Tsuki]

What the author said is often of interest, but if they are a good author, they will have made those points apparent in their work already. It's nice when something you read in an interview adds to what is already there, but this is just adding something that wasn't apparent. He could have been homosexual, or heterosexual. It didn't matter for the purpose of the story, so it wasn't there to be seen.

But most of the time, they don't have the resources to do so. There are many restraints that the author face when writing their story, all they can do it put down the best ideas in the best working order without bloating it too much. I mean everyone acknowledges that Tolkien is a good author, even HE elaborated on the universe of Middle Earth outside of his books with letters to his fans. Rowling prolly wanted to give the opportunity to the reader to ignore the fact because, truth to be told, it's no small deal for a beloved character to be gay and clearly presented in that way in a children's book, plus the book business is a BUSINESS, if she said anything about that before the last book came out, it most likely hurt sales because most parents aren't comfortable with that. We really don't know the reasons for it, it could be for the money or other things.

And I disagree that what the audience think is true is true. If that was so, then most fanfiction authors would have validity to their pairings. When we read the book, we are the audience to the author's imagination. What we believe is true may not be true at all. Books are just a limited view of said imagination (or other media for that fact).

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in my last post, but the point I was getting at wash that it doesn't matter how you didn't like how it was presented, it's still a fact, despite whatever subject it was.

[KyubiNoKitsune]

Inc 50 thousand jokes about how Dumbledore got that ultimate wand from whats his name that starts with G.
Grindelwald...
Gridelwald was probably Dumbledore's first love...
And the duel they had was a lover's quarrel... :naughty:

[Ariel Tsuki]

^ LMAO. Nah, it was made clear it was a one-sided affair on Dumbledore's part and most likely he kept it secret.

[KyubiNoKitsune]

^ LMAO. Nah, it was made clear it was a one-sided affair on Dumbledore's part and most likely he kept it secret.
Well, I've yet to read the release from Rowling... Link anyone?

[Soluzar]

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear in my last post, but the point I was getting at wash that it doesn't matter how you didn't like how it was presented, it's still a fact, despite whatever subject it was.
It's going to make you crazy that I don't acknowledge that as a fact relevent to the Harry Potter novels, isn't it? I've read the books, this supposed 'fact' of yours isn't in them at all. I don't find it on any of the printed pages, or even as a marginal note or footnote. I don't find an inserted page containing the errata from the printer. I don't find that any of the numbered pages are missing.

In fact, if you can find the evidence in your copy, and give me a page number, I will accept that regardless of the obvious deficiencies of your copy. If you wish to continue to make alternate arguments, please note that I will be forced to consider them all void in the face of the lack of documentary evidence.

I'm not asking you to substantiate J. K. Rowling's intentions for the books, I'm asking you to find for me the precise page in edition of any of the books where this intention was expressed through the medium of the written word.

I'm sure she wrote her books with this in mind. I'm sure that there's no reason the character cannot be considered homosexual. I'm sure that for him to be homosexual was her intention and that it does not conflict with anything in the books. I'm equally sure that if a person was to read the books from start to finish, they would find no mention of this. As a result of that, in the mind of the typical reader, it plays no role in the story.

You see, if you want something to play a role in the story, you have to write about it. Ms. Rowling didn't write about this aspect of Dumbledore's character because it wasn't relevant to the story. That means that she knew perfectly well that it wouldn't be a fact within the story. What is a fact is that she created the character as homosexual. It's also a fact that there is nothing to indicate this.

Anyway look, let's cut this short. You and I have antagonised each other before, and this is just going to be one of those topics. You're not winning me over, I'm not winning you over. We have an understanding now, do we not? May we declare this topic a stalemate?

[KyubiNoKitsune]

Do you really think that they would have published a children's book with express references to homosexuality?
They made her rewrite the fifth book twice because it was, quote unquote, "Too violent."...
And, Soluzar, you're coming across as kind of homophobic, what with all the denial...

[Soluzar]

And, Soluzar, you're coming across as kind of homophobic, what with all the denial...
You're funny. You're very funny. ^_^

This is about the way books are written, Kyuu. This has nothing whatsoever to do with sexuality. I don't care who or what people screw, and I don't judge anyone based on their preferences in that particular aspect of life. It wouldn't make a bit of difference to me if Dumbledore was gay, or if anyone else was. He certainly never gives any indication of it, but then some people don't.

What I'm trying to say can be summed up as follows.

1) It's not relevant.

He never has a relationship of any kind, nor does he express interest in one. If there was even the slightest sign of any romance of any kind involving Dumbledore, then it might just be relevant. As it is, the romance seems to involve just about everyone but him.

2) It's not important.

So what if he's gay? I don't see how it affects the story in any way, and really I wouldn't have made an assumption one way or the other. His sexuality is not defined, which is pretty standard for fictional characters who don't indulge in romance during the course of a narrative

3) It isn't apparent.

Of course there's no reason for it to be apparent, but if you're going to answer an interview question by saying that the character is gay, I would imagine that there would be at least some indication of this somewhere in the narrative. There's no indication either way in the novels.

Even if you take onboard the statement that he is, it tells you nothing further about the character. If it told me something about who he was, and what his drives and motivations were, that might be of interest, but as things stand it is of less importance than his eye color.

I'm rather shocked that you would make such an accusation though, Kyuu. I assume from this that you're entirely unfamiliar with my posting history and with me as a person. I stand by that same posting history as a cast-iron defense against such risible accusations.

In any case, I have suggested to Ariel Tsuki that we call a halt to this meaningless argument, and I suggest the same to you. Of course I would respond to such a statement as the one you made above, but I have no wish to do more than summarise my position on this matter. We're done here.

[earsofdoom]

You see peaple.... the thing about fictional characters is that they are different then we are. My "story" has and will continue for as long as i breath but harry potter's won't becouse the only way his can continue is if Rowling's Pen touch's paper. also in the world of writing everything about characters is presented to the reader for a reason, characters that make one appearence in the background arn't cheating on there wives back home.... no there entire existence is pretty much limited to what they present to the reader, if they were cheating it would be presented. Rowling didn't present anything to the reader about this so either she's trying to get horny slash fans to buy her book or she's a lousy writer who failed to present this in her books.

[Ariel Tsuki]

^ Because all slash authors are horny despite a majority of slash is not smut.


Anyway look, let's cut this short. You and I have antagonised each other before, and this is just going to be one of those topics. You're not winning me over, I'm not winning you over. We have an understanding now, do we not? May we declare this topic a stalemate?

Unfortunately, this topic, unlike the ones before, involves the author herself saying it. What the author says about anything about her character, for ANY reason, is it's true. Even if it's not in the book. You can say it's not in the book, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a fact. It's really an open and close case in this point. You can have your opinions but your opinion doesn't outweigh the fact. You can ignore it, but the fact exists. You can do anything but it doesn't change the validity of that fact, whether it's relevant to the story of not.

Rowling is far, FAR from the first author do something like this (in that reveal stuff of the characters outside of the book) and far from being the last. The book is NOT the be-all, end-all for her story, just a limited view of it.

This argument was pointless because Dumbledore being gay is canon and there's people who are saying "Well, it's not said in the book therefore it's not canon" even though the author HERSELF says it is. That is the silly part, since when reader's opinion outweighs the author?

[Soluzar]

Unfortunately, this topic, unlike the ones before, involves the author herself saying it. What the author says about anything about her character, for ANY reason, is it's true. Even if it's not in the book. You can say it's not in the book, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a fact. It's really an open and close case in this point. You can have your opinions but your opinion doesn't outweigh the fact. You can ignore it, but the fact exists. You can do anything but it doesn't change the validity of that fact, whether it's relevant to the story of not.
So in other words, you'd rather argue than just leave it be? Well, I'm not going to give you the satisfaction. I'm going to have to frustrate your hopes for another protracted argument, by refusing to indulge you. I've more than adequately demonstrated my case in this topic. It's an alternate point of view, and it has validity.

You may of course feel free to disgaree. What you may not do is draw me into a pointless argument. You can argue with Ears instead. I'm sure he will prove a far more suitable adversary. He has the tenacity which I lack. :)

[Tenou]

Actually, when I read the book (HP&tDH) I wondered if Rowling realized how gay Dumbledore came off. Had some good debates over it.

Soluzar:
There are quite a few people who got a gay vibe from Dumbledore, especially when describing his relationship with Grindelwald. Not an 'oh, DumbledorexHagred, love boylove' idiocy coming from asinine teenage twerps. A close look at subtext, known history, and cannon in the context of queer theory.

Look at their letters, planning their life together. Just because she didn't write 'and gay Dumbledore fell in love with gay Grindelwald. The gay kind of love, not brotherly kind of love.' Look into queer theory, homosexuality tends to be in overtones, subtext, and euphemism. You can imply a romantic relationship... Think 'Fried Green Tomatoes'.

Now, does that mean I don't think Rowling is jumping on the proverbial bandwagon? Oh, I certainly think she is. But she also had to be careful not to alienate her readers while she still had a book to be released. I'm surprised that it was said before DVD release of OotP. As a media stunt, it's gutsy. The religious backlash died down after a few years. It could be an indication of a prequel where she is intending to delve deeper into Dumbledore's past. She's getting it out now so that by the time it's released the frenzy will be over.

[earsofdoom]

^ Because all slash authors are horny despite a majority of slash is not smut.

:lol: every damn time huh? "sound of train going off rails in background"



Unfortunately, this topic, unlike the ones before, involves the author herself saying it. What the author says about anything about her character, for ANY reason, is it's true. Even if it's not in the book. You can say it's not in the book, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a fact.

So if a valve worker tells me after the half-life series end's that Gordan had sex with a Head crab zombie back in Episode 1 is that fact to? Nope becouse there is absolutely nothing that suggest's that gordan is a.... whatever you call peaple who have sex with head crab zombies. (probably necropheliac is the closest term)

^
Rowling is far, FAR from the first author do something like this (in that reveal stuff of the characters outside of the book) and far from being the last. The book is NOT the be-all, end-all for her story, just a limited view of it.


Wrong, the story is over. the character's existance is confined to the words Rowling puts in her books harry's life started when rowling's pen touched the paper and ended when that pen left the paper. He has no past that wasn't mentioned in the books and he has no future UNTIL rowling puts that pen on the paper. She can sit there and ramble about "Oh Harry's gay" "Oh No name character #2 was also gay" "Harry did crystal meth" in her senile state but are any of these even plausible? Not really and everyone would think she was just trying to get fans UNLESS she rights another book that makes these things undeniable.

I have to ask..... if Rowling said Harry was a transgender would peaple really take it seriously? or if the Creator of Evengelion told you Shinji wasn't a virgin, etc. Yes Rowling says hes gay now, but she's also now a lousy writer.

[Tenou]

I have to ask..... if Rowling said Harry was a transgender would peaple really take it seriously? or if the Creator of Evengelion told you Shinji wasn't a virgin, etc. Yes Rowling says hes gay now, but she's also now a lousy writer.

Strawman. Dumbledore being gay is not contrary to the story. There is nothing in the books saying that Dumbledore isn't gay. There is, however, a wealth dialogue and situations which suggest the possibility of homosexuality.

[Ariel Tsuki]

So if a valve worker tells me after the half-life series end's that Gordan had sex with a Head crab zombie back in Episode 1 is that fact to? Nope becouse there is absolutely nothing that suggest's that gordan is a.... whatever you call peaple who have sex with head crab zombies. (probably necropheliac is the closest term)

If they said it, it's true. The reader doesn't have any power to declare what is true or whatnot.

Wrong, the story is over. the character's existance is confined to the words Rowling puts in her books harry's life started when rowling's pen touched the paper and ended when that pen left the paper. He has no past that wasn't mentioned in the books and he has no future UNTIL rowling puts that pen on the paper. She can sit there and ramble about "Oh Harry's gay" "Oh No name character #2 was also gay" "Harry did crystal meth" in her senile state but are any of these even plausible? Not really and everyone would think she was just trying to get fans UNLESS she rights another book that makes these things undeniable.

I have to ask..... if Rowling said Harry was a transgender would peaple really take it seriously? or if the Creator of Evengelion told you Shinji wasn't a virgin, etc. Yes Rowling says hes gay now, but she's also now a lousy writer.

If Rowling said so. If you really believe that, then most if not all authors are bad writers. Just because they involve in limited view of the book is over doesn't mean that's the end of it.

But it doesn't matter, she said it's canon, it's canon. The end. Case closed.

[VidelCoolGirl]

Strawman. Dumbledore being gay is not contrary to the story. There is nothing in the books saying that Dumbledore isn't gay. There is, however, a wealth dialogue and situations which suggest the possibility of homosexuality.
This is something I agree with. Sure; everything is better when blunt, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist otherwise. Rowling doesn't have to outright say "He's gay" in order for him to be gay. Reading between the lines often helps bring that sort of thing to light. For example, before he even said it, we all knew Elton John was gay, WAYYYYY before he said he was. Implications are an innuendo's best friend.

[Alice Catherine]

Wow.

This board is way more mature about it than GameFAQs.

[Soluzar]

There are quite a few people who got a gay vibe from Dumbledore, especially when describing his relationship with Grindelwald. Not an 'oh, DumbledorexHagred, love boylove' idiocy coming from asinine teenage twerps. A close look at subtext, known history, and cannon in the context of queer theory.

Look at their letters, planning their life together. Just because she didn't write 'and gay Dumbledore fell in love with gay Grindelwald. The gay kind of love, not brotherly kind of love.' Look into queer theory, homosexuality tends to be in overtones, subtext, and euphemism. You can imply a romantic relationship... Think 'Fried Green Tomatoes'.
Your post should be considered an object lesson for Ariel Tsuki in how to handle a debate with Soluzar. Of course I was bluffing, because I have stated that I didn't read the last two books in the series. I asked her to find me an example, and an example is all that I require in order to admit that there's substantial evidence to imply the character may be homosexual.

If it is in the books, it is in the books. You can't argue with the books as they are written, and I don't intend to. I admit that I didn't read the last two, but i was arguing the idea, not the specifics. I'm pleased it was in the actual books rather than just being part of an interview given to a fan, because that makes it more concrete. My difference of opinion with Ariel still remains, but it has been rendered rather pointless by this revelation.

I admit that I was arguing based on the notion that there was nothing in the books to support this, which would make it a rather unfathomably pointless thing to say, but now that I know there's enough subtext to read, I'm actually not entirely surprised. It is extremely important to me that it should be understood I'm not opposed to the notion of a gay Dumbledore. I'm simply advocating the art of critical reading. I should perhaps have made it more clear in this context that I haven't read the last two books, but judging from the other posts I did not feel it necessary.

[earsofdoom]

This is something I agree with. Sure; everything is better when blunt, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist otherwise. Rowling doesn't have to outright say "He's gay" in order for him to be gay. Reading between the lines often helps bring that sort of thing to light. For example, before he even said it, we all knew Elton John was gay, WAYYYYY before he said he was. Implications are an innuendo's best friend.

Yes but Elton john was well..... well just look at him he's like the flaming gay stereo-type come to life.

If they said it, it's true. The reader doesn't have any power to declare what is true or whatnot.

I really hope if i go senile... or just make a simple joke in the future nobody takes what i may say about whatever i write seriously.



But it doesn't matter, she said it's canon, it's canon. The end. Case closed.

Ever heard of a retcon before?

[Ariel Tsuki]

Your post should be considered an object lesson for Ariel Tsuki in how to handle a debate with Soluzar. Of course I was bluffing, because I have stated that I didn't read the last two books in the series. I asked her to find me an example, and an example is all that I require in order to admit that there's substantial evidence to imply the character may be homosexual.

If it is in the books, it is in the books. You can't argue with the books as they are written, and I don't intend to. I admit that I didn't read the last two, but i was arguing the idea, not the specifics. I'm pleased it was in the actual books rather than just being part of an interview given to a fan, because that makes it more concrete. My difference of opinion with Ariel still remains, but it has been rendered rather pointless by this revelation.

I admit that I was arguing based on the notion that there was nothing in the books to support this, which would make it a rather unfathomably pointless thing to say, but now that I know there's enough subtext to read, I'm actually not entirely surprised. It is extremely important to me that it should be understood I'm not opposed to the notion of a gay Dumbledore. I'm simply advocating the art of critical reading. I should perhaps have made it more clear in this context that I haven't read the last two books, but judging from the other posts I did not feel it necessary.



Even so, it only gave the possibility, it not the same as you were seeking for, concrete proof that he's gay. Honestly, I read their relationship nothing more than close friends with big dreams together.

The books never said if he's gay or straight, nor give any clear inclination of either because it wasn't important to the story as a whole. I think that's what Tenou was getting at anyways.

Ever heard of a retcon before?

But that's only implying something that was before then changed. There was no declaration of Dumbledore's sexuality and nor it changes the continuity of the series. There's a different of changing something around when something's already there and filling in a blank space.

[Soluzar]

Even so, it only gave the possibility, it not the same as you were seeking for, concrete proof that he's gay. Honestly, I read their relationship nothing more than close friends with big dreams together.
What I was looking for was at least some subtext that might give meaning to what Ms. Rowling has said. At least it is presumably possible to read the passages that Tenou has mentioned as implying homosexuality. That means that Ms. Rowling did express her intentions for the characterthrough the medium of the book rather than just leaving that aspect out of the written story entirely.

I still don't buy the notion of externally imposed canon. Even if it is the author's right to say what's true in their world... that still doesn't mean that the work will reflect this. It's so much better when the work actually does reflect it, because then you can read the books as written without external information being necessary.

The books never said if he's gay or straight, nor give any clear inclination of either because it wasn't important to the story as a whole. I think that's what Tenou was getting at anyways.It seems more like to me she was saying that there's a distinct possibility of reading it as an implied homosexual relationship, but Tenou is more than capable of speaking for herself. I'll leave it at that, and Tenou can tell you what she was getting at, since I can't know for certain.

Did you notice how easy it was to convince me? I respond very well to a pursuasive argument based in facts. There would appear to be far more subtext present than is required to set up the average yaoi slash pairing for fanfiction. Don't take that as an insult to slash fiction, but as a genuine observation. Look at it in an objective light, and you'll probably agree.

[Caine]

Wow.

Soluzar, you just admitted you were arguing for the sake of argument, if I'm reading this right. Your argument with Tsuki is obviously about the nature of what is true in a fictional realm, not about HP specifically, but if you argued about something you knew you had incomplete knowledge of, especially saying that copies containing evidence that Dumbledore was gay contain "deficiencies," when you had not read the entire series, you broke good form.
Also, for future reference, no matter how well you think you and our opponent are familiar with each other, please don't assume that everyone knows what you have and haven't read. Not everyone follows your posts and keeps track of everything you've said, and someone else may wish to contribute. Just my request.

Here is my position
Either it is relevant or not.
If it is irrelevant, so is this argument.
If it is relevant, even if in some very small way, then we may feel the need to ask some questions. Is there textual evidence? Why did Rowling not say more on this in the book? Why did she reveal this now?

I think that going after her for revealing it now is a bit low. It is possible that she had evil or impure intentions (perhaps she has shares in a fanfic site. who knows?). I find it much more likely that she was simply asked the question and answered it honestly.

There are reasons why she might not have included it in the books, which I think are worth looking at, including, but not limited to: reluctance to include an openly gay character in a children's book, she wanted it to be a subtext, and the fact that the series was already long enough.

As for the text, it crossed my mind that he might be gay, but not too seriously, mostly because it didn't really matter.

[Sora Sol]

She said the word "fanfiction".

She was joking.

[Yukito Kunisaki]

Wow, this topic is a hit. Anywho, My friend emailed me this info. I never read harry potter, so I never even knew him.

[Soluzar]

Soluzar, you just admitted you were arguing for the sake of argument, if I'm reading this right. Your argument with Tsuki is obviously about the nature of what is true in a fictional realm, not about HP specifically, but if you argued about something you knew you had incomplete knowledge of, especially saying that copies containing evidence that Dumbledore was gay contain "deficiencies," when you had not read the entire series, you broke good form.
You're right, it was a breach of good form, but the point still stands. I'm still going to have to stand by everything I said, which is that I don't regard anything outside a book as being relevant to what takes place within it. The book is constituted of the words on the page. I took a calculated risk that I could make that argument absent a full command of the facts.

In the end it failed, but I'm not really upset about that, because it means J.K. Rowling is a better author than if I was correct. That's something to be pleased about... I suppose. You see how the point I was making is independant of the actual situation here? The books I've read don't contain anything of that nature, and I was given to believe that the later books had nothing such either.

I have to admit, I could have done this a lot better, but the end result wouldn't be any different. It would still amount to me learning that there's a basis in the books for this, and I would still be advancing the position that only a basis in the books can make something truly a part of the story.

I do apologise for the way I did it though.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

All people are gay for prons

[goddessofanime]

Dumbledore was gay. Just like Snape is emo and Drago is secretly gay for Harry.

[Caine]

You're right, it was a breach of good form, but the point still stands. I'm still going to have to stand by everything I said, which is that I don't regard anything outside a book as being relevant to what takes place within it. The book is constituted of the words on the page. I took a calculated risk that I could make that argument absent a full command of the facts.

Well, this makes things interesting. We could embark on a full semantic debate here. What does it meant to be relevant to what takes place within the book? Relevant to the book as a whole? relevant to one of the specific aspects of the book?
True, the book is simply the words as written on the pages, but is something other than the book relevant to the book?
Chinua Achebe wrote an essay on Heart of Darkness That is not a part of Conrad's work, but it affects how some read that book? Is that in some way relevant to the book?


In the end it failed, but I'm not really upset about that, because it means J.K. Rowling is a better author than if I was correct. That's something to be pleased about... I suppose.

Yes, higher quality of authors is a good thing.

[Leader Desslock]

Soluzar, you just admitted you were arguing for the sake of argument, if I'm reading this right.
So? 90% of argument is just for the sake of argument. Look at my posts. Do you for one moment think that I care about the legality of fansubbing? :lol:

You're right, it was a breach of good form, but the point still stands.
I wouldn't even consider it a breach, actually. I think it's a legitimate debate strategy. Bluffing is a legitimate strategy in poker, and the tactic in rhetoric has a lot more historical precedence.

Even so, it only gave the possibility... The books never said if he's gay or straight, nor give any clear inclination of either...
If the text only gave the possibility, then this alleged "fact" you claim is as yet indeterminate. Until pen hits page to make it canon, it's not. Authors are subject to canon regarding their own works, just like any other author.

Maybe it's a joke, maybe it's speculation, maybe it's the core concept for the upcoming Skinemax series "Red Wand Diaries". Until Rowling pens it, it's not determined one way or the other, and it ain't canon.

You think otherwise? Fine. I don't pretend to agree with you on matters of fiction. I'm pretty sure neither of us is gonna lose a wink of sleep over that, either. ;)

[Samurai Drifter]

It was implied throughout the books that at the very least Dumbledore didn't have much interest in women. I'm not really surprised.

[HellonEarth]

So? 90% of argument is just for the sake of argument.
I like how you just made this figure up to back up your claims. I have worked in business and in resource management. We don't tend to deliberately misrepresent our position just to gain brownie points, or argue for the sake of arguing. Your statement maybe true in certain professions and online debates, but not in general.

I wouldn't even consider it a breach, actually. I think it's a legitimate debate strategy. Bluffing is a legitimate strategy in poker, and the tactic in rhetoric has a lot more historical precedence.
If I "bluff" while in a meeting with my directors, I will most likely get sacked. Bluffing, by that I take it to mean deliberately lying for rhetorical effect when a straightforward argument would suffice, is frowned upon in many professions that I know of. It may well be par for the course in forums such as these and in the past, but step out into the real world of serious debating in contemporary society, and it's a different story. This is because bluffing wastes time in a debate and it doesn't build up a good relationship. Also, it makes you out to be a conceited person, not to be trusted and not a team player. So that's why I think it is fine in say, an online forum, where there're no serious consequences for bluffing, but beyond that, as a debating strategy, it is dubious.

Besides, a major part of this discussion is whether J.K. Rowling gave any evidence that Dumbledore was gay in her books, to justify her claim in the interview, after she had written them. Applying the same logic, did Soluzar give any evidence that he/she was bluffing in the published material (posts), to justify his/her claim that he/she was (rather than covering up the fact that he/she made a mistake)? As a neutral, I say no.

[GreatNekoKoneko]

...i smell a doujin!

[Caine]

So? 90% of argument is just for the sake of argument. Look at my posts. Do you for one moment think that I care about the legality of fansubbing? :lol:


That definitely came out wrong. Still, what I was commenting on was the admission of the fact, not the fact itself.
Obviously I know that right now you are simply attempting to debate for fun. Still, you at least are confining yourself to the realm of the abstract (what is and is not cannon, and what is and is not good from) without getting into the specifics too much.


I wouldn't even consider it a breach, actually. I think it's a legitimate debate strategy. Bluffing is a legitimate strategy in poker, and the tactic in rhetoric has a lot more historical precedence.

frist of all, this isn't poker
secondly, he went beyond just bluffing. bluffing is acting as if you have a better position than you actually do. Soluzar stated that he had a higher position than he actually did, and then inuslted anyone who would oppose him.
third, I am acting on the assumption that we are at least pretending at a benign, civilized, productive debate.


If the text only gave the possibility, then this alleged "fact" you claim is as yet indeterminate. Until pen hits page to make it canon, it's not. Authors are subject to canon regarding their own works, just like any other author.

Maybe it's a joke, maybe it's speculation, maybe it's the core concept for the upcoming Skinemax series "Red Wand Diaries". Until Rowling pens it, it's not determined one way or the other, and it ain't canon.

You think otherwise? Fine. I don't pretend to agree with you on matters of fiction. I'm pretty sure neither of us is gonna lose a wink of sleep over that, either. ;)

so its not cannon unless its openly stated?
Hypothetical situation: in a movie, we see two characters go into a room together, and we hear noises that imply intercouse, but we don't explicitly see the two of them in the act. Is it cannon that they had intercouse?

If so, we have opened the door to implications. The question then becomes where we draw the line. Obviously there is a vast difference between the dumbledore situation and the hypthetical situation above, but where is the line drawn?

Now, we also have a philosophical issue here. This is the proverbial tree falling where none can hear it. Dumbledore's sexuality had no impact on the sotry as told in the books. I see no point in contradicting Rowling. Someone asked the question, presumably as an attempt to find out more about the HP world, and she anwered it. Regarding the HP world, it is true.

And lastly, if it impacts the making of the movie, does that lend it any credibility?

[Vaikyuko]

Just curious, but why can only three or four people in this topic spell canon properly? A cannon fires large rounds, a canon doesn't.

Anyway, I find this debate utterly pointless to begin with. No one's going to get anywhere; you're going to have the people who are slash/ship/whatever fic authors, the people who are all "the author says it it is true no matter what damn your canon", and the people who are all "canon is all plzkthx".

I tend to fall into the last category, and think Rowling pulled this out of nowhere (it has to be a joke. Nowhere in Harry Potter did I read anything remotely resembling homosexuality). But I really don't get why we've segued from the original topic of discussion to something kinda random, because of, to put it succinctly, "a bluff". Who cares about proper argumentative technique on the internet? It's not going to change anything here.

With that, I think I'll go study some biology now.

[Soluzar]

Soluzar stated that he had a higher position than he actually did, and then inuslted anyone who would oppose him.
third, I am acting on the assumption that we are at least pretending at a benign, civilized, productive debate.
You imagine insults where none exist. At the least you imagine them where none was intended. I've made an apology, and I've acknlowledged that I was wrong about the content of the books. I should have said that I was basing that only on the first five books, so that anyone could point out (as Tenou did) what was in the latter two.

Once again, I'm sorry. I still stand by the core of my argument though, which is that only what is in the books can be taken as relevant. There was nothing dishonest about that aspect of my participation in this topic.

[Leader Desslock]

Your statement maybe true in certain professions and online debates, but not in general.
Quoted with the relevant bit highlighted for obviousness and general amusement.

So that's why I think it is fine in say, an online forum, where there're no serious consequences for bluffing, but beyond that, as a debating strategy, it is dubious.
You're right, of course. Bluffing in rhetoric, particularly as part of statesmanship - to think that anyone would do that is just ludicrous. Nobody'd ever consider using a tactic like that in real life...

I am acting on the assumption that we are at least pretending at a benign, civilized, productive debate.
This is the AN Off Topic forum. Did you actually manage to type that sentence with a straight face? :lol:

so its not cannon unless its openly stated?
That's not what I wrote. If that was the case, then Rowling stated this 'fact', and that would make it canon. I'm saying the opposite.

In the case of fiction, a penned medium where meaning is conveyed from the author to the reader via the written word, the only facts that are relevant to canon are those conveyed via the medium. Pen hits page, words written and published by the author are read by the reader. That's canon. Everything else is irrelevant.

Rowling might have always envisioned Lupin to be a Freemason, but unless she indicated it by putting pen to page, it's not relevant to canon. I'm sure she imagined LOTS of things when she was writing the Potter series - some contradictory, some not. She only committed some of what she imagined to published page. The rest of it can be relegated to author's notes, and those aren't canon.

Now let's take your example really slowly, one bit at a time, so that nobody misses the important point here...

Hypothetical situation: in a movie...
An audiovisual medium...

...we see two characters go into a room together, and we hear noises that imply intercouse, but we don't explicitly see the two of them in the act. Is it cannon that they had intercouse?
You're asking whether something is canon if it's conveyed through sound in an audiovisual medium? How about you answer your own question, there? Or how about I ask you the same question in a bit more obvious situation: Is the dialogue in a movie considered canon, even if we can't clearly see the character's lips move?

...If so, we have opened the door to implications.
All I see is that people have tried to pry open that door with crowbars of wishful thinking, then tried to interpret a literary work based on what they project to be there, rather than what's there.

The question then becomes where we draw the line.
I draw the line where it is normally drawn for purposes of formal literary analysis - at the written word. Anywhere else and that pic of Anno saying "fanwank something" comes to mind. Ultimately, I enjoy works of fiction (and entertainment works in other media) for what's there, not for what I wish was there or what I think should've been there.

I see no point in contradicting Rowling. Someone asked the question, presumably as an attempt to find out more about the HP world, and she anwered it.
Actually, she didn't. The question, as I understand it, was whether Dumbledore found true love. Her response was that Dumbledore was gay.

... and? My initial reaction was that gay people should be offended. Was she saying that gay people don't find true love? :lol: That's why I didn't take it seriously. I just laughed. I knew what the reaction would be.

Regarding the HP world, it is true.
If you and others choose to regard it as such, then I wish you luck with this approach to literary criticism.

And lastly, if it impacts the making of the movie, does that lend it any credibility?
Given that several details are changed from the novels to the screen adaptation, there are effectively two bodies of work (one literary, one cinematic) to which the term 'canon' can be applied. There happens to be some overlap between the two, but there is no one true canon to discuss.

However, since you ask, I'll ask a related question: If we were to discuss the issue of canon in Middle Earth, whose version would have more relevance, Tolkein's or Peter Jackson's? Major differences, there. Somehow, I really don't see anyone debating whose version is the definitive version.

To my mind, if the novels came first, the novels are canon. Subsequent non-canon screen adaptations do not overwrite the original works. As I said, authors are subject to canon restrictions regarding their own works, just like fanfic authors.

[Ariel Tsuki]

As I said, authors are subject to canon restrictions regarding their own works, just like fanfic authors.

But there's a difference between them, the author has a much wider view of the universe than the reader and cherry picked the ones she wanted for her reader to view. Dumbledore being gay didn't violate any canon rules whatsoever. If would be something if he did show some interest in a woman, because then she is violating something from her canon.

People keep on saying that she should added it on the books, but they forget that Harry Potter is about... well, Harry Potter... for the most part anyway. Our peek into the World of Hogwarts and it's people is limited to mostly one person's point of view. Throwing in that Dumbledore's gay would probably mess up her view of she wanted Harry to think of Dumbledore, because it was a major plot point in the last two books. Until the last book, Dumbledore was a complete mystery to Harry (and to the readers for that matter) who never saw him other a gentle, eccentric and powerful wizard (although he was growing frustrated with Dumbledore since the fifth book because Dumbledore kept in the dark to protect him.). The last two books tested Harry's trust of Dumbledore whether his opinion of Dumbledore was a correct one. Putting in Dumbledore is gay would had to had address Harry's opinion on the matter which, in the end, is not necessary for the story because it would create more problems than helped with the flow of the story.

She just filled in a blank space basically, not violating canon.

EDIT: Egad, forgot something. I don't think she's saying that he's gay, he can't have a relationship solely because of that. Remember, Dumbledore was practically the Minister of Magic and was a high-profile figure. I highly doubt that homosexuality is viewed better in a world where the wizard bloodline is more on the verge of extinction each generation, so Dumbly walking around with a boyfriend is a no-no. Plus with the betrayal of the guy he loved and increasing responsibility as one of the most influential wizards of modern time, constantly planning and setup organizations to screen the progress of Voldermort and the Death Eaters, and a Headmaster of prolly one of the most prominent wizarding schools in the world, stuff like romance most likely taken a backseat in his life.

[ecchi]

I just got over the fact that Rowling said Dumbledore is gay. It doesn't even matter if he's gay or not. He's not the main character and this is not a pornographic novel so it matters not his orientation. And you guys who are arguing that Rowling never wrote it in her book, get over it! Does it really matter if Dumbledore is gay or straight? It doesn't serve one bit of a purpose to the book. Just get over it and get a life. If the author says one of her character is gay, then he's gay. End of discussion for me.

[Vaikyuko]

I just got over the fact that Rowling said Dumbledore is gay. It doesn't even matter if he's gay or not. He's not the main character and this is not a pornographic novel so it matters not his orientation. And you guys who are arguing that Rowling never wrote it in her book, get over it! Does it really matter if Dumbledore is gay or straight? It doesn't serve one bit of a purpose to the book. Just get over it and get a life. If the author says one of her character is gay, then he's gay. End of discussion for me.

First, note the bold. Second, they're debating whether only what is transcribed or all that the author relates to it is canon (whether or not the author's stuff is contradictory or notes or whatever).

In any case, like I said before, I'm with the "if it isn't in the book, it isn't canon" crowd. If I wrote a book and told someone that, say, in an unwritten sequel the main character dies, well, it's irrelevant, because it's unwritten and the character as of the last publication is still alive.

[HellonEarth]

It seems that people here are obsessed with arguing about what the word "canon" means (which, to be blunt, I find pointless). But if that's what gets you excited, then each to their own, I suppose :) .

On a second note, the main participants in this thread remind me of some of the arts students in the college I went to: those that love to impose their opinions on other people, no matter how insignificant the subject matter, and get all defensive when they hear other opinions.

[The Million Dollar Prons]

Hi we're talking about a children's novel not talking about wether or not bluffing is okay

[Caine]

That's not what I wrote. If that was the case, then Rowling stated this 'fact', and that would make it canon. I'm saying the opposite.

I don't get the impression that what you are actually saying is the opposite of what I actually wrote. It may be the opposite of what you percieved me to have meant (not to be confusde with what I wrote or waht I intended, I was again sloppy) but I can't seem to find a coherent opposite of what I wrote that makes any sense.

In the case of fiction, a penned medium where meaning is conveyed from the author to the reader via the written word, the only facts that are relevant to canon are those conveyed via the medium. Pen hits page, words written and published by the author are read by the reader. That's canon. Everything else is irrelevant.
of course, as has been stated, there is some textual evidence.

Rowling might have always envisioned Lupin to be a Freemason, but unless she indicated it by putting pen to page, it's not relevant to canon. I'm sure she imagined LOTS of things when she was writing the Potter series - some contradictory, some not. She only committed some of what she imagined to published page. The rest of it can be relegated to author's notes, and those aren't canon.
see above



All I see is that people have tried to pry open that door with crowbars of wishful thinking, then tried to interpret a literary work based on what they project to be there, rather than what's there.

I draw the line where it is normally drawn for purposes of formal literary analysis - at the written word. Anywhere else and that pic of Anno saying "fanwank something" comes to mind. Ultimately, I enjoy works of fiction (and entertainment works in other media) for what's there, not for what I wish was there or what I think should've been there.

so you deny that there were any hints that Dumbledore may have been gay?


Actually, she didn't. The question, as I understand it, was whether Dumbledore found true love. Her response was that Dumbledore was gay.

... and? My initial reaction was that gay people should be offended. Was she saying that gay people don't find true love? :lol: That's why I didn't take it seriously. I just laughed. I knew what the reaction would be. .
and she decided that to answer that question completely she had to give backgorund about who Dumbledore loved, which made Dumbledore's sexuality relevant. That he was gay was not the entirety of her response.


If you and others choose to regard it as such, then I wish you luck with this approach to literary criticism.

except the statement as I made it has little impact on literary criticism. I said it was true in the HP fantasy world; I did not say anything there about the books.


However, since you ask, I'll ask a related question: If we were to discuss the issue of canon in Middle Earth, whose version would have more relevance, Tolkein's or Peter Jackson's? Major differences, there. Somehow, I really don't see anyone debating whose version is the definitive version.

Two problems here
1) Something, no matter how small, is being done in an HP work as a result of the author. Jackson had no input from Tolkien, but Rowling stated that she advised a change in the movie.
2) You appear to be underestimating ignorance. There are people who think the books are based on the movies and will consider the movies the definitive version. They may not be debating it, but don't underestimate their ignorance.

[KyubiNoKitsune]

Caine, you make a very compelling and intellectually stimulating argument...
I don't get why people deny Canon... If the author said it's true, that makes it so... If I wrote something, and then later decided that I forgot to add something, I would just change it, and let everyone know that it changed...

[Samurai Drifter]

A lot of you guys are missing the fact that it was pretty clear in the books that Dumbledore had no interest in women romantically. I think Rowling had him characterized as gay while she was writing it, but, just as often the case in real life, Dumbledore didn't talk about it.

[earsofdoom]

On a second note, the main participants in this thread remind me of some of the arts students in the college I went to: those that love to impose their opinions on other people, no matter how insignificant the subject matter, and get all defensive when they hear other opinions.

Arn't you soppoused to be talking about completely off-topic business practice rather then trolling? :lol:

A lot of you guys are missing the fact that it was pretty clear in the books that Dumbledore had no interest in women romantically. I think Rowling had him characterized as gay while she was writing it, but, just as often the case in real life, Dumbledore didn't talk about it.

Your making the mistake of thinking of Dumbledore as a 3D entity. Rowling put everything that Dumbledore was in her books and anything not in those books either doesn't exist or was add'd afterwards.

[HellonEarth]

Arn't you soppoused to be talking about completely off-topic business practice rather then trolling? :lol:
Aren't you supposed to be taking spelling lessons? :lol:

[earsofdoom]

Aren't you supposed to be taking spelling lessons? :lol:

The irony is often the peaple whom seem to think online spelling on a forum actually matters can't spell properly themselves, after all an idiot who spells decently online doesn't change the fact he's an idiot.

[HellonEarth]

The irony is often the peaple whom seem to think online spelling on a forum actually matters can't spell properly themselves, after all an idiot who spells decently online doesn't change the fact he's an idiot.
I seriously hope you don't write like this offline.

[earsofdoom]

I seriously hope you don't write like this offline.

:lol: becouse we all know internet spelling is SERIOUS BUSINESS, if your sole intention on this forum is to troll let me be the first to say good-bye to you becouse you sir are not going to last long here.

[Bernard_Monsha]

Just a publicity stunt for her mediocre books.

I dunno I can see Dumbledore asking if the first year boys if they have ever seen a grown man naked, like to watch gladiator movies, and hang out in the locker room. Kudos to who ever recognizes that.