Author's Intent and Dumbledore's sexuality

[Battlehymn Republic]

I know that often in debates on fiction author's intent is brushed aside in favor of textual evidence.

However, how far does this go? I know of course in fan stories and whatnot one is free to write whatever, and so author's intent can be ignored, as well as textual evidence. But where else is author's intent applicable? For example, should we consider Albus Dumbledore to be homosexual, as per J.K. Rowling's revelations, or is he for all intents and purposes merely old and asexual if we go by textual evidence?

[Broomstick]

I know that often in debates on fiction author's intent is brushed aside in favor of textual evidence.

However, how far does this go? I know of course in fan stories and whatnot one is free to write whatever, and so author's intent can be ignored, as well as textual evidence. But where else is author's intent applicable? For example, should we consider Albus Dumbledore to be homosexual, as per J.K. Rowling's revelations, or is he for all intents and purposes merely old and asexual if we go by textual evidence?

If we go by "textual evidence" quite a few characters in fiction are asexual. It's not always relevant to the story. Actually, Rowling did the right thing by not dragging Dumbledore's sexual orientation into the series because it really was irrelevant to his role in the series.

But yes, I feel that if the author makes a definitive statement about something of that sort it should be treated as cannon. Of course, in fanfic people will do what they want, but yeah, when clearly stated I think "author's intent" is what should apply.

[FA Xerrik]

Makes sense. If JK Rowling or an authorized affiliate were to publish further official Harry Potter works, Dumbledore's sexual orientation would have to be in accordance with her statements. But, in the actual books that we have, it isn't brought up and plays no effect on any of the events, and so needn't be considered. It would almost be like if JK announced "Dumbledore had headlice too." Whether he did or didn't, such a thing would in no way affect any aspect of the book and so we wouldn't really care.

This may not make as much sense as it did when I thought it out...

[Ericxihn]

Still, there are a lot of details in the Harry Potter books that are irrelevant to the the plot(paper airplane department memos?) but that's what gives the world its charm and part of what makes the books popular. I don't think that the fact that Dumbledore is gay is irrelevant is enough reason to not even give a hint of it in the books.

[Broomstick]

Much as I would like to say revealing that tidbit in the books would have made no difference, in fact if such factoid had been mentioned in the first book the sales would have been much lower, parents would have protested, and so forth. Reality intruding into fantasy and all that.

[Anguirus]

I don't think that the fact that Dumbledore is gay is irrelevant is enough reason to not even give a hint of it in the books.

There ARE hints of it in book seven.

[Darth Raptor]

But yes, I feel that if the author makes a definitive statement about something of that sort it should be treated as cannon. Of course, in fanfic people will do what they want, but yeah, when clearly stated I think "author's intent" is what should apply.

The obvious caveat being when they proceed to write something contradictory to their stated intent (see: Lucas, George). Since this isn't the case, the idea that you can just handwave it out of the canon because it's not in there explicitly strikes me as so much wishful thinking.

[MadSorcerer]

I don't think that the fact that Dumbledore is gay is irrelevant is enough reason to not even give a hint of it in the books.

There ARE hints of it in book seven.

Where?

[Anguirus]

The whole subplot about Dumbledore and Grindlewald, and Dumbledore's "old friend" going crackers when Rita Skeeter is going after it. She's clearly trying to drag his name through the dirt over his affairs, but Harry is too dense to figure it out (and thus the book doesn't play it up much).

Hints. But not blatant ones. A wise decision.

[Lost Soal]

There's Dumbledores tear when he finds out that Grindlewald died trying to save his grave from desecration, plus while there's no mention of it, their is the question of how Dumbledore beat Grindlewald when he had the unbeatable wand. It doesn't make sense unless Grindlewalds love was holding him back, at least that's how I see it.