Wriging

Personally I think she should have left it alone. I don't think there were any hints in the book and saying this now does seem a little not because of any issues with gay people but because it's too late - the books are over.

I can't believe she didn't have any idea of the reaction something like this would get but if, as she says, his sexuality doesn't matter - why bring it up now?

I don't think she's changed anything about her characters. Dumbledore was gay before and after she explicitly stated that he is. And there was a fair amount of speculation before she said that he was, in fact, gay. But to casual readers, like myself and 90% of the population, it escaped unnoticed.

I think part of the reason she may have stated explicitly that he was gay was that it doesn't matter. After all, if he's gay and no one notices, he may as well have been straight and no challenge to our heteronormative understanding of the world. By making us aware that he is, people have to consider what difference, if any, his homosexuality makes.

Having said all that, I'd tend to agree with this piece from Salon: Dumbledore? Gay. J.K. Rowling? Chatty. It raises the same questions you do: when should an author stop talking about their work?

I'm going to talk out of my ass for a second, and not research because I'm at work, but I believe she brought this whole thing up because someone asked if Dumbledore had a love interest. If someone's asking that question, and she's thought about it and then responds that he's gay, it clearly means -something- to someone. I think a lot of people are way too eager to jump on the fence of being proper and say that him being gay "doesn't matter at all", lest they come off as a prosecutor of gay people the world over. It might matter to some people, but I feel the correct way of stating is "it shouldn't matter".

All things considered, best case is that she viewed it as unimportant to the character and while knowing it never really incorporated it into the books. Then, when asked the lame question about big D, she casually and simply tossed it out there. That's the best case. She definitely knew that saying it would get her some publicity, but I suppose I'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she didn't do it entirely for the press.

My overarching question remains, however, does she even have the right to say things like that about the characters, or is her role done once the books are finished?

She created him. She owns him. She can say as much or as little about any of her creations as she sees fit. :)

I have to agree essentially with peroty (as does the Salon piece I linked to). Perhaps we'd (as a random grouping of people) prefer that she didn't keep talking about the book, but there's no good reason that she can't. She may be stifling furtive speculation about things, Harry's future or Dumbledore's sexuality, but there's no reason she shouldn't be allowed to do it.

And I'm not sure that talk of "rights" is exactly what you want, but law does give her the "right" to say it as well.

I'm not trying to sound rude, but I don't see what the big deal is.

She created her characters, they are hers in every aspect, and she can talk about them in any context she chooses to, whenever and wherever she wants.

I suppose one of the things I was getting at are the implications of what she changes after the fact, specifically the gay announcement but it could be with anything, it has an impact on how people view the character and the work and could easily displease her fans and drive away readers.

I'm not trying to sound rude, but I don't see what the big deal is.

She created her characters, they are hers in every aspect, and she can talk about them in any context she chooses to, whenever and wherever she wants.

@LorriM: Not rude at all, these are some of the answers / replies I was looking for! I didn't necessarily ask these questions expecting an answer out of the ordinary, I just wasn't sure what to think about it as a whole.

Is it really within an author's power and/or right to reveal details after a book series has finished?

Yes and yes. It's their creation, end of story.

I think Neil Gaiman put it best, after the following question was asked of him:

In Ross Douthat's recent column in the Atlantic Monthly concerning the J.K. Rowling press of late (http://tinyurl.com/yq2wz2), Douthat suggests that "a writer confident in her powers wouldn't feel the need to announce details like this". It seems odd to me that ulterior motives are so quickly suspected -- she was an author answering a question with additional information not previously known. Do you find yourself withholding information during Q&A if it's not already contained in the story? Why or why not?

And here's his answer (summarized):

All that tells us is that Ross Douthat doesn't write fiction.

You always wind up knowing more about your characters than you can get onto the page. Pages are finite, and the story isn't about giving you all the information about everyone in it any more than life is. Things the author knows about characters (or at least, strongly suspects -- it's never really real until it hits the page, because the process of writing is also a process of discovery) that don't make it onto the page could include the characters' backstory, what they like to eat, the toothpaste they use, what happens to them after the story is over or before it began, and what they do in bed. That something didn't turn up in the books just means it didn't make it onto the page or wasn't relevant to the story...

Neverwhere has two gay characters who are Out, as far as the book is concerned, and one major character who is gay but it isn't mentioned, simply because that character was one of many people in that book who don't have any sexual or romantic entanglements during the story. So it's irrelevant.

Sometimes even the author doesn't know for sure ... And, truth to tell, sexuality tends to be such a minor thing, if you have several hundred characters running around in your head. You know more than you've written.

You can see the full reply on his blog.

In short, I think this is much ado about nothing. If the details of his sexuality weren't important to the story, then they shouldn't have been in there.

As a fiction writer, I've created characters who people understand and believe to be one way, but I as the writer, understand at a much deeper level, one that cannot -- and should not -- necessarily always make it to the page, whether this be because of word length constraints, or more commonly, because it doesn't really matter to the story. Does it really matter to the progression of the stories that Dumbledore's gay? If not, if it wasn't going to play into things in any way, shape or form, then the revelation thereof during the books doesn't need to be there.

It's like if I go out on a date with a girl and she's wearing contacts, but I don't know it. Then, the next day, after having had a wonderful date, she tells me she wears contacts. Am I supposed to be like "Alright, whoa. Hold on there. You mean to tell me you've been LYING to me this entire time, making me believe that your vision was OK? Excuse me? You should have told me that from the beginning, I mean... geez! This was important information, and... well, I should have known up front."

And this is the very reaction we're seeing.

Besides, she already had a bunch of groups demanding her books be banned from schools because they contained "witchcraft." Do you think that maybe, just maybe, she decided to leave out that whole detail because it MIGHT damage her publisher's reputation? I can hear it now from the religious folks, "This publisher says witchcraft and homosexuality is OK! BAN SCHOLASTIC FROM THE SCHOOLS!" Not all religious folks, true, but the loud, annoying ones there are way too many of in states like Kansas and Florida.

In the end, the question is did it at any point matter to the actual story? Would it have changed the way you enjoyed the story or the characters? If the answer to the first is no -- that his sexuality would have no bearing in the story -- and the answer to the second is yes -- that your perception of the character would be different -- then the problem is not with the story, since that detail just didn't need to be there, but instead the problem is within you.

She may not have been expecting a big backlash because she may simply not have seen what the big deal was. Maybe she's as comfortable with the idea of homosexuality as most of us are with the idea of heterosexuality. "Oh, he has a girlfriend. Cool." "Oh, he has a boyfriend. Cool." Must be nice to have that kind of innocence about... well, anything.

And to paraphrase Gaimain, when people get all up in arms about this not being revealed in the books it just tells me they've never written fiction.

I totally agree with Gnorb (and I love that quote by Gaiman). To me, it makes more sense that Dumbledore was gay and was in love with Grindlwald, because love makes people blind in some sense.

And it wasn't as if Rowling was trying to make it into the news on purpose. She was on a book tour, discussing the books, and she answered a question that was put to her. This is the first opportunity since she began writing the HP series that she could answer any question put to her, without fear of giving the rest of the story away.

Fans will always want to know more about the HP world than the books give us. It's the number one fanfiction favorite, with far more fan stories being written about the HP world and characters than any other book/tv/movie.

Knowing Dumbledore is gay just opens up a brand-new fandom for the diehard fan writers that are still coming out with HP fanfiction.

It's Rowling's prerogative to divulge however much she wants about her characters. But by giving so much away I think she does a disservice to her readers and to her text. I never get to use my imagination anymore outside of reading fiction. Don't take that away from me.

As I alluded in the other Dumbledore note, literature allows for us to use our imaginations, processing and interpreting what information is on the page. It's all subjective.

A quote from Hemingway:

If a writer knows enough about what he is writing about, he may omit things that he knows. The dignity of movement of an iceberg is due to only one ninth of it being above water.

That, to me, is the beauty of fiction. The fact that it's not an account of THINGS THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED allows you to form your own opinions and discover layers the author himself may not have even been conscious of.

This is why we have book clubs and discussion groups. I remember discussing The Scarlet Letter in eleventh grade and wondering how my classmates drew some of their conclusions, and I'm sure they wondered the same when I raised my hand to talk.

Awesome! I'm very glad I posted this if nothing else than to see those quotes from Gaiman and Hemingway!

I said before:

All things considered, best case is that she viewed it as unimportant to the character and while knowing it never really incorporated it into the books. Then, when asked the lame question about big D, she casually and simply tossed it out there.

So I'm glad to see that it fits right in with what Neil was saying. Thanks again Gnorb and Jensized!