Now that Albus Dumbledore has been outed as a gay character by Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, it got me thinking about other gay characters in children’s literature.
In college, I took a class on children’s literature and one of the stories we tried to dissect was “Jack and the Beanstalk.”
Aside from being a story about conquering your fears and expecting the unexpected, it turns out it can be viewed as a gay fantasy. Eager boy climbs a beanstalk of a phallic symbol, only to entice and frustrate a giant of a man who lives in the clouds.
It was as disturbing in college as it is now.
Believing Jack is gay is about as easy as believing Dumbledore is gay. Not that there’s anything wrong with a gay character in children’s literature, but how does it add to the story?
In both cases it doesn’t. However, there are some characters in children’s literature who are decisively gay, and it does matter.

1. The Man in the Yellow Hat: The man who finds and adopts Curious George is so gay. The movie version of the story gives him a girlfriend, but in the books, he is about as gay as you can get. Stylish yellow clothes, very tidy house, always leaving on some “urgent errand” and leaving his poor monkey alone to get into mischief. When the Man in the Yellow Hat says he has to play with his monkey, it can be interpreted in a number of ways.
2. Captain Hook: First clue is that he is a pirate. Let’s not get into specifics, but it’s not a good thing for a grown man to pretend to be a pirate. Unfortunately, Captain Hook might be a child-molesting pirate. He has far too much of an obsession with Peter Pan and his Lost Boys. And the first thing he wants to do when he captures Wendy is feed her to Tick-Tock the crocodile.
3. The Seven Dwarfs: Maybe not all of them. Happy, Bashful, Grumpy, definitely gay. The others, maybe bi-curious. Dopey is probably the only straight one of the bunch. Now, meeting Snow White gets them all excited. But it’s not because an attractive girl has decided she wants to live with them. It’s because an attractive girl has agreed to clean and keep their house while they are away “at work” in the mine. Who knows what goes on when they are away all day toiling underground?
4. Bert and Ernie: Not quite literary characters, but they defnitely fit the gay character mold. Bert is a bit too much of a neat freak to be straight. And Ernie takes way too much pleasure in his bubble baths.
5. Samwise Gamgee: The sidekick to Frodo Baggins in “The Lord of the Rings” definitely loved his master. But was he in love with him? That’s the debate. Samwise was loyal, trustworthy and faithful to Frodo. But if that was all he was to Frodo, then Samwise might as well have been a dog. Frodo needed more than a dog to help him fulfill his destiny. He needed a trusted partner. There are only two types of people — brothers and spouses — who can be trusted to the degree Frodo trusted Sam. They were definitely not brothers, so that leaves only one other possibility.
6. Marcie from Peanuts: The Peanuts Web site says that Marcie and Peppermint Patty have secret crushes on Charlie Brown. The Peppermint Patty part I believe. She is the only character who looks past Charlie Brown's deficiencies and sees just another kid trying to make it through childhood. Marcie, on the other hand, is competing with Charlie Brown for Peppermint Patty's attention. Marcie's quiet, unassuming approach makes her unthreatening. But if Peppermint Patty ever gave her the attention she desired, it would make Marcie happier than Snoopy on Easter. That Marcie calls Peppermint Patty "sir" should be enough for anyone to realize their is some sexual frustration going on there.
7. Rabbit from Winnie-the-Pooh: He's the cranky old man of Pooh corner. He is a stickler to detail, unusually tidy and hates disruptions. Plus he thinks he's smarter and more clever than anyone in his world. He is the worst kind of gay character out there: one who is unaccepting of others. If anything, he should be the most tolerant of the characters in Winnie-the-Pooh. Instead, he is the one who discriminates first.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

That's right. If you're going to make a character gay, then make a character gay. I'm sure there were maybe a few among us who knew or suspected Dumbledore was gay, but I sure didn't and my gay-dar is pretty damned good, and if the gasps of shock from the Carnegie Hall crowd were any indication, pretty much nobody else picked it up either.

Don't get me wrong ... I'm not expecting DD to be a "fabulous" gay man ... but were we supposed to intuit that he was gay from his "midnight blue robes?" Perhaps they should have been rainbow colored. I mean, where were we supposed to get it from? He and the Grindlewald character were close friends -- was that the clue that he was gay? Because if the criteria for being gay is that he had a male friend, then that would make me gay, too. She's said all along that there were clues laid out for all of her major secrets, but then I'm going have to give Rowling a prize for making subtle an entirely new genre.

Ms. Rowling, there were no clues. I'm sorry. Clues that DD was gay weren't there. Rowling is a writer not afraid to explore dark themes, but I guess open homosexuality was too dark even for her.

I think it's wonderful that Rowling chose to make one of her characters gay. There are too few gay characters in literature in my opinion, but I think two of my friends both put it best when they said, "He's gay? And that's germane to the story how exactly?" If DD's being gay was his raison detre, or even the reason he took up with Grindlewald in the first place and the reason that things spiraled out of control, I would have liked that to have been made clear while I was reading the books. I would have liked something, anything that would have approximated a relationship that went beyond two men who were friends. It would have added such a deeper understanding of the nature of love and choices, which is what JKR had DD yammer on about for more than 40,000 pages. It also would have dovetailed nicely with other relationships and outcomes in the books.

It is understandable given the time Rowling places DD and Grindelwald's friendship that she would have closeted Dumbledore. He lived during a time when homosexuality wouldn't have been accepted. In fact, it was criminal. She makes allusions to the fact that it was during the '30s-'40s and thusly during the Nazi era. Homosexuals were rounded up and put to death along with every other "undesirable" under Hitler's plan. But that doesn't mean she couldn't have made his gayness apparent to us ... the readers. Maybe he could have been closeted to the rest of the wizarding world Rowling created, but not to us, the audience. We needed to know, but clearly she didn't want us to know until now.

I understand the sensitive nature of introducing sexuality of any kind in a children's book. It's a hot issue, it's divisive and controversial. Perhaps Rowling didn't think the DD's sexuality defined him, but then why bring it up at all?

So, I say it again, if you wanted him to be gay ... make him gay. Stand by it. Make him, if not proud, at least OUT on his own terms! Put it out there during, not after. It's easy to say he's gay NOW and respond to critics. You're books have already flown off the shelves and you live in a Scottish Fortress, so the critics and gay bashers who come at you with trebuchets of hate will never be able to hurt you. It's takes balls to say he's gay before the next book comes out.

If you wanted him to be gay, then this was a really chicken way to do it.

Posted by Sharon Kaplan at 1:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If there was going to be a gay character in the Harry Potter books, my money was on Neville Longbottom. Turns out it's Albus Dumbledore.
Neville ends up marrying Hannah Abbot and Dumbledore had a thing for Gellert Grindelwald. Who knew?
Apparently J.K. Rowling, and not many others. The clues were all there, flowing robes, poor judgment, few mentions of any attraction to women. I did find it curious that Dumbledore and Professor McGonagall weren't closer.
Rowling outed Dumbledore, the headmaster of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, during the question-and-answer portion of her Book Tour at Carnegie Hall in New York on Friday. She was asked during the book tour if Dumbledore finds true love.
Rowling responded: “Dumbledore is gay,” to gasps and applause, according to The Associated Press.
The following is AP's account of what happened at the Book Tour in New York:

Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay.
J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character
Friday night while appearing before a full house at Carnegie Hall. After reading briefly from the final
book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” she took questions from audience members. She was asked by one young fan whether Dumbledore finds “true love.”
“Dumbledore is gay,” the author responded to gasps and applause.
She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in
a battle between good and bad wizards.
“Falling in love can blind us to an extent,” Rowling said of Dumbledore’s feelings, adding that Dumbledore was “horribly, terribly let down.”
Dumbledore’s love, she observed, was his “great tragedy.”
“Oh, my god,” Rowling concluded with a laugh, “the fan fiction.”
Potter readers on fan sites and elsewhere on the Internet have speculated on the sexuality of Dumbledore,
noting that he has no close relationship with women and a mysterious, troubled past. And explicit scenes
with Dumbledore already have appeared in fan fiction.
Rowling told the audience that while working on the planned sixth Potter film, “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,” she spotted a reference in the script to a girl who once was of interest to Dumbledore.
A note was duly passed to director David Yates, revealing the truth about her character.
Rowling, finishing a brief “Open Book Tour” of the United States, her first tour here since 2000, also said
that she regarded her Potter books as a “prolonged argument for tolerance” and urged her fans to “question
authority.”
Not everyone likes her work, Rowling said, likely referring to Christian groups that have alleged the books
promote witchcraft. Her news about Dumbledore, she said, will give them one more reason.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 8:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One of the reporters at the JK Rowling Book Tour at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood was a little girl. She was sitting in the front row with reporters from the Associated Press, Los Angeles Times, MTV, NBC, FOX and of course us at the Daily News.
The moderator of the news conference made sure she got a chance to ask a question, and she asked a good one, one that actually made Rowling think a little before she answered.
The little girl asked Rowling which book was the most difficult to write.
"It would be a contest between three," Rowling said. "Four were pretty easy to write and I enjoyed writing them. Three felt like hard work."
The three were "Chamber of Secrets," "Goblet of Fire" and "Order of the Phoenix."
"For different reasons, they were all tough," Rowling said.
Of the three, "Chamber" was particularly tough.
" 'Chamber of Secrets' was the only time I ever had what I consider genuine writer's block," Rowling said. "I've never had it before or since."

Posted by Tim Haddock at 9:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

JK Rowling made it clear she took no pleasure in killing any of her characters -- and she killed a lot of them in "The Deathly Hallows."
Melissa Jimenez, a senior from San Fernando High School, and one of the 1,600 Los Angeles Unified School District students who were able to participate in the Book Tour at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, asked Rowling about the characters she killed in "The Deathly Hallows."
Jimenez was one of 12 students who were able to ask Rowling a question about Harry Potter during the Book Tour. Rowling was asked, among other things, about Patronuses, the Sorting Hat and the Houses of Hogwarts.
Jimenez, like me, found the death of Dobby a little unsettling. Rowling responded similarly to Jimenez's question, saying that Dobby was representative of innoncence and that his death would have an intensified impact on other characters.
But Jimenez was equally upset with the death of Fred Weasley.
"George and Fred were twins," Jimenez said. "I was upset he died. He completed the family."
Jimenez said if she could have asked Rowling another question, it would have been about inspiration. She wanted to know what exactly inspired Rowling to write Harry Potter.
Fernando Juarez from Berendo Middle School asked Rowling about Patronuses. He wanted to know what Patronus Rowling would have. She said she would like an otter, but hers would most likely be a dog.
Juarez said if he had a Patronus, his would be a wolf.
Chanel Smith from University High School asked Rowling about Snape. One of the most complicated characters Rowling created, Snape went from being a sinister, mean, unforgiving tormentor of Harry Potter to the tragic hero who sacrifices himself to save Harry, his friends and allies.
"She knew what she was doing," Smith said. "It was mind-blowing. It affected me a lot. There's a lot of love inside everybody."
Smith said she was convinced Snape was a bad guy until the end of "The Deathly Hallows." It surprised her when he acted so selflessly in the Battle of Hogwarts. She was even more stunned when it was Snape who exposed Dumbledore's plan for Harry: "about pulling Harry along to kill him at the right moment."
Well, Harry doesn't die. But that's not exactly how Dumbledore planned it. And even though Harry essentially saves himself, it was Snape who allowed for Harry to face Lord Voldemort for the last time.
Smith had one more question for Rowling, too, but didn't get a chance to ask it.
She wanted to know what House Rowling would be sorted into. Rowling has said she would be a Hufflepuff, but Smith and I agreed she would be a better fit in Ravenclaw.
And Smith -- she wanted to be in a Gryffindor, of course. Not because she considers herself a brave person, but because she is a bit of a jokester, like Fred and George.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The more I think about it, the more I have trouble with JK Rowling's explanation of why she killed Dobby. Dobby was doomed from "The Chamber of Secrets" apparently. Rowling decided she was going to have to kill him the minute she created him. But her explanation of why he had to die is a little hard to understand.
"I suppose you could say very prophetically Dobby had to die," Rowling said during the book tour at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, "so he could become Harry's motivation. That's not why. I always knew he was going to die and how he was going to die."
Dobby in her mind was the emodiment of vulnerability and innocence. Looking back, Dobby was neither vulnerable nor innocent.
When Dobby was freed by Harry Potter, Dobby became a voice for elf rights. If anything, he had the strongest will of all the house elves. He was the one trying to convince the others that freedom was better than servitude, that independence was better than slavery. There were few elves who shared Dobby's beliefs, but it didn't stop him from trying to change them. Those are not the traits of a vulnerable character.
As for innocence, Dobby was far from unbiased and pure. From the moment he met Harry Potter, it was clear whose side Dobby was on. He knew good from bad, knew Harry Potter represented hope and his masters, the Malfoys, represented oppression. Dobby knew he had to side with Harry Potter, and physically abused himself, demonstrating the strife within to resolve his conflicted allegiances.
Rowling reiterated that Dobby was "someone that was very vulnerable." His death was indicative of the loss of innocence in the wizarding world. It's why Harry is so moved by Dobby's sacrifice.
"It was another senseless murder," Rowling said. "In the same way Cedric Diggory's death was senseless."
Senseless, yes. But a loss of innocence, hardly. Harry's innocence was being stripped away the moment his parents were killed. He was never given a chance to be pure.
Lord Voldemort was an enemy. The wizarding world looked to Harry as a savior. No one gave Harry a chance to make mistakes and, more importantly, learn from his mistakes. He was expected to be a perfect wizard and a perfect boy. His innocence was lost well before he ever met Dobby.
She could have picked a better character to represent vulnerability. Ginny? Luna? Percy?
But finding a character to represent innocence would be a challenge in this story. None of the kids have much sense of innocence. The elves, centaurs, ghosts, goblins, all have prejudices. There were not many innocent characters in Harry Potter's world. It seems like everyone, even the kids at Hogwarts, were guilty of some indiscretion, even if by association after they were sorted into their houses.
Finding an innocent victim in Harry Potter would be a challenge. Maybe Dobby was the closest thing. But it's a stretch.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A few rambling thoughts from the press conference.

For those among us who wondered about the Snape/Dumbldore relationship (OK, maybe it's just me), JKR did have this to say (backpeddling slightly from earlier interviews): DD was indeed meant to be seen as a Machiavellian character. He was the master puppeteer and apparently for a good literarary reason. If I understood Rowling correctly, at the point Snape dies, and we (and Harry) are lead through Snape's memories to the point where you see in flashbacks the tangled and totally unhealthy relationship the dynamic duo had, your sympathies are supposed to be with Snape, not Dumbledore. JKR said that she loved the frailty of DD's human failings because it could train the focus, on Snape's strengths and ... dare I say it ... his heroism?

JKR seemed really happy to be talking to the kids. She is clearly in her element now, even in front of the press, who you just know she hates. This day was for the kids who were clearly awestruck by the whole event -- from the reporters, TV cameras, and the flashes of more than a dozen photographers to the weight of meeting probably the most important literary figure of the last 100 years. If I were 10 again, I'd probably have the same deer-in-the-headlights looks that many these children had, and in fact I did.

I can see exactly why this event was so special. Even if the debate rages about the Potter series being a gateway book to get children interested reading (some statistics would show that it hasn't), Rowling is still a pop-culture icon and this really was a big deal for fans and for literature and for encouraging a positive alternative form of entertainment at the very least.

Posted by Sharon Kaplan at 1:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

No magic could help J.R. Rowling get out of a rather embarrassing moment when her dress scooched down just a little too low exposing a bit more than schoolchildren should see at that tender age. Of course, photographers feverishly snapped. Only one out of the throng came to her aid by politely pointing out that ... well ... a few pages from her own personal book were showing, and I have to say, JK handled it with a grace and aplomb that I certainly could NEVER have mustered under the same circumstances. Me? I would have run off crying Hot Lips Hoolihan-style. But JK Rowling ... cool. calm. collected. Great, you saw my bra, let's move on.

And move on she did. More on my take from the press conference a little later.

Posted by Sharon Kaplan at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The book tour with JK Rowling went about as expected. It was a room full of reporters, each of whom got to ask one question.
Of all the questions I had for her, I chose the one about Dobby.
Before the news conference began, Sharon and I were talking about what to ask her. Sharon wanted to know about the debate over house unity and why she didn't burn the sorting hat at some point during "The Deathly Hallows."
I mulled over my thoughts about her portrayal of journalists in her books and how did the Potters gain such wealth.
But I decided on the Dobby question.
I asked her why did Dobby have to die before Harry gained his focus and began attending to the task Dumbledore assigned him.
She said that Dobby was a vulnerable character and was just another example of how innocent characters were being affected by the evil plans of Lord Voldemort.
She compared Dobby to Cedric Diggory, both being innocent victims of violence. Apparently Dobby was the last innocent victim Harry wanted to see die.
I can buy that to a point. I still think there were other characters whose deaths could have illustrated that point much better. But I didn't get a chance to follow up with another question about any other characters she thought would have filled that purpose.
Rowling was asked to discuss other points of her books. She talked about Snape and Dumbledore. She talked about how "The Chamber of Secrets" was the most difficult of the books to write. She talked about how she is far from retired and will always write.
And she talked about how she is progressing on her next projects, which is not very well.
More later after I transcibe the tape of the news conference...

Posted by Tim Haddock at 9:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sharon and I, plus a couple other Daily News staffers, will get a chance to participate in a news conference with J.K Rowling on Monday at The Kodak Theatre as part of her United States Book Tour.
Students from 40 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District will be participating in the book tour. They will get a chance to ask her questions and listen to her read from "The Deathly Hallows."
I have a ton of questions I would like to ask her, but probably will only get to ask one or two. Here are some of the things I am thinking about:

Why Dobby? Of all the characters she could have killed to motivate Harry to unravel the mystery of the horcruxes and stop wasting time with the Deathly Hallows, Dobby would have been one of my last choices. I was certain Ron was toast. He was the one character closest to Ron, in age, in interests, in friends. Ron was Harry's surrogate brother, the closest thing to family he had at Hogwarts. If Ron was killed, Harry would have no choice but to seek revenge.
But revenge is not a noble pursuit, and if anything Harry is a noble character.
That leaves Arthur Weasley or Hagrid. Both played the role of patriarch to Harry. Anyone wanting to be a father-figure to Harry was doomed. James, Sirius, Dumbledore all died trying to save Harry from a similar fate. Arthur and Hagrid were surely in line, yet they were able to survive the deadly Battle of Hogwarts.
I have a hard time accepting that the death of Dobby was enough to change Harry's outlook and pursuit.
Dumbledore in limbo. Rowling had a great opportunity to explain many of the mysteries in her books in one chapter, when Harry meets Dumbledore in limbo and with that whimpering specter of Voldermort's splintered soul shivering in a corner. She could have explained how James and Lily died; why Harry was able to survive; why Sirius was so attached to James and not able to see Harry differently. She missed her chance to explain much of how Harry became the Boy Who Lived.
Journalists. Rowling hates them. At least her portrayal of journalists in her books is far from flattering. Rita Skeeter is a metaphorical and literal pest. The Daily Prophet is filled with more rumor than fact and Rowling relies on the interpertations of Hermione to translate the stories into anything credible. The Quibbler is a joke of a publication. And Xenophilius Lovegood, the publisher of The Quibbler, is a treacherous traitor.
Harry. Even though the books are named for Harry Potter, by the end of The Deathly Hallows, it becomes clear he is a fairly inconseqential character. Severus Snape is the catalyst for the stories, not Harry. Snape is duplicitous, yet incredibly loyal to Dumbledore. Without Snape, the powers of evil probably prevail. Snape sacrifices his life so those loyal to Dumbledore have a chance to rid the wizard world of Voldermort's evil. Harry just happened to be the unfortunate soul who embodied the extent of Voldermort's arrogance. If anything, Harry was a convenient distraction so Dumbledore and Snape could come up with a strategy to defeat Voldermort.
There is no way we will be able to ask all of these questions. We will probably be lucky to ask one or two. And we probably won't get any sort of detailed answer.
But it's not going to stop us from asking.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 9:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Banned book lists make me laugh. Harry Potter has been at the top of most banned book lists for a few years now. "The Deathly Hallows" wasn't on the latest list of most challenged books from the American Library Association for 2006, but he is at the top of the most challenged list for books released from 2000-2005.
To make this list, someone, somewhere has to file a complaint asking for the removal of a book from a school library, bookstore, classroom, anywhere an innocent child might be tainted by a questionable depiction of a character or setting.
A story about penguins hatching an egg and raising the chick was the most challenged book of 2006, according to the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom.
The reason it's so offensive: the penguins both are male. Homosexual overtones are exposed. Paranoid parents panic. Book banners line up outside schools from West Virginia to Nevada.
Not that anyone actually reads these books. They overhear about their controversial content, usually at church, then fly into a frenzy to have them removed.
Parents shoud be happy if their kids are reading anything at all and stop limiting their choices.
But it also makes me wonder if Harry and Ron ever took the friendship to the "next level" if that would alter their standing among the religious right. They are already among the most hated characters in modern literature by Christian standards. Stories about witches and wizards, monsters and curses apparently don't fit into the Christian mold. Then again, if that were the criteria, most of the Old Testament would have to be edited. Another discussion for another day.

Here are the “Most Challenged Books of the 21st Century (2000-2005),” also from the American Library
Association.
1. “Harry Potter” series by J.K. Rowling
2. “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier
3. “Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
4. “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck
5. “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” by Maya Angelou
6. “Fallen Angels” by Walter Dean Myers
7. “It’s Perfectly Normal” by Robie Harris
8. “Scary Stories” series by Alvin Schwartz
9. “Captain Underpants” series by Dav Pilkey
10. “Forever” by Judy Blume

Here are the “10 Most Challenged Books of 2006,” as listed by the American Library Association’s Office for
Intellectual Freedom.
1. “And Tango Makes Three” by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
2. “Gossip Girls” series by Cecily Von Ziegesar
3. “Alice” series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
4. “The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big Round Things” by Carolyn Mackler
5. “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison
6. “Scary Stories” series by Alvin Schwartz
7. “Athletic Shorts” by Chris Crutcher
8. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” by Stephen Chbosky
9. “Beloved” by Toni Morrison
10. “The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier

Posted by Tim Haddock at 9:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The National Braille Press is auctioning a set of signed Harry Potter books to raise money for the nonprofit organization that publishes the Harry Potter books in braille.
The online auction started Oct. 3 and will end Oct. 25. As of Friday night, 13 bids had been made, the highest at $3,600.
J.K. Rowling donated a signed set of books to a charity in England and raised almost $40,000.
The books for the National Braille Press are being stored in a vault at Sovereign Bank in Boston.
Those interested in making bids can go to http://www.braille.cmarket.com until Oct. 25. Bidding will continue at the "Hands On! Books for Blind Children -- A Million Laughs for Literacy" hosted by "The Tonight Show's" Jay Leno at the Intercontinental Hotel in Boston on Oct. 26.
"Sovereign Bank will keep these valuable Harry Potter books safely stored in our bank vault. We are also proud to return as a sponsor of this wonderful event which raises funds for such a vital organization that provides blind children with books in braille," said Joe Campanelli, President and CEO of Sovereign Bank.

Posted by Tim Haddock at 6:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)