Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: JrN88tion @ 10/25/2007 9:11:30 AM

    Its all just an afterthought. Its fiction for heaven's sake, he can be whatever YOU want him to be..JK didnt stipulate it in ANY of the 7 books, so its just her trying to stay in the spotlight after the quest is over. Think what YOU want. I think its crazy for Dumbledore to be gay. He's just the kindhearted headmaster that many respected and admired throughout the series. JK...let it go. Its over. Leave poor old Dumbledore alone.

  • Posted By: Tassadar @ 10/24/2007 4:11:36 AM

    It is interesting how much commotion such a simple statement can cause. I believe that once Rowling wrote the books, created the characters, they are now her intellectual property and she can do with them as she pleases. You can be unhappy about it (which is a little silly if you ask me), but to go so far as discard this statement of hers is narrow-minded ignorance of facts you do not like because you disagree.
    It is little different from those who burned people for saying that the world is not flat a couple centuries ago. I would hope that we have all learned from both history and present occurances that tolerance is the only way we can keep peace, no matter if it is tolerance of differences in religion, race, or political or sexual orientation. Anyone who has problems accepting Rowling??s decision that Dumbledore was gay will still have to learn some more..

    • Posted By: RemusLupin @ 10/25/2007 9:00:25 AM

      Descision? She had more than 10 years to make descisions about her characters' sexuality! Why didn't she made it until the last book was published?!
      I can't accept this so called "descision" because I think it was a political announcment to promote her current and future projects and not a part of the Harry Potter books.
      Thats why I said that for me Dumbledore will be straight forever... Because it is the way I pictured him in my imaganation and Rowling has no right to put districtions on her readers imaganation from the moment she laid her pen and on.

  • Posted By: leeco @ 10/23/2007 9:48:09 AM

    This is just plain stupid. Why do children need to know the sexual preference of people? Does everything have to promote sexuality? Can't children just have a good book? I find it offensive that this is just a way to sell more books and appeal to anyone who has to push an agenda.

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:39:35 AM

      She told because someone asked.

  • Posted By: RemusLupin @ 10/23/2007 2:37:53 AM

    Oh! And that "At least I didn't kill him" about Hagrid...
    She takes too much on her shoulders... :)
    We (at least I) love these characters and no one, even the writer herself can ruin it for us (at least me).

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:39:16 AM

      How does that ruin him? All the great traits that made you love him? Notice how they're still there?

    • Posted By: miss tara @ 10/23/2007 1:57:19 PM

      you should remember that SHE wrote those characters you love.

  • Posted By: RJBenik @ 10/23/2007 8:20:31 PM

    Poohter, I don???t think your comment fits well with this thread. If you want to attack someone???s personal beliefs, then shoot them an e-mail on your own time. As for the fact that Dumbledore is gay, if Rowling wants to say that Professor Snape was a cross dresser in his free time, then it won???t make much of a difference for me. I believe that it is up to the reader to decide upon something that is never discussed in the books. Personally, I don???t think the caring headmaster???s sexuality is at all relevant to the story and should be left out completely. Although there are many other sources that have compiled evidence of old Albus???s homosexuality, people will always find a way to insert hidden meaning into the simplest and most obvious statements, much like you poohter believe that anyone who does not openly celebrate homosexuality is a ???homophobe.??? Overall, I think it is unfair for Rowling to go back and put boundaries on how readers imagine any of the characters. If she always pictured Dumbledore as being gay, that is more than fine, and even encouraged, but to state it as fact???well she MUST have known what a stir it would cause..tsk tsk.

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:30:06 AM

      It was largely irrelevant to the story, yes. That's why it actually was left out completely, as you say it should be.

  • Posted By: FatherlyOne @ 10/23/2007 9:26:13 PM

    Were it not for my daughter being so emeshed in the Harry Potter series, I would have little more than a laugh over this because it ranks up there with the speculation over whether or not Batman and Robin or Gillian and The Skipper were queer.

    However, since my daughter has become involved in The Franchise, I was thinking about what I really feel concerning the matter of JK Rowling's recent "outing" of her fictional character in her children's book and this is what I have come up with:

    One man "loving" another man does not make him homosexual, gay or whatever other title we use to brand this type of affection, in the absence of the thought necessary to reach past such socio-political nomenclature with which we are being herded.

    This opinion as expressed by J.K Rowling, that a man who loves another man is "gay" is dangerous. She has not written subtext into her story which, to date, would illustrate her character???s sexual orientation ??? yet, upon her stating that he loved another man she labels him gay.

    What of the love of hero worship,of sons who love their fathers or brothers who love brothers or male students who have feelings of love for their professors ??? this cannot all be so conveniently defined (if not pandering to the political gay agenda) as "gay".

    I see a clear distinction between them and to willfully cloud the distinction is offensive. It is further a violation of trust when is comes from someone who is spinning yarns to our children.

    If my nanny told my daughter after reading her Little Red Riding Hood, that the Wolf who was disguised as granny was queer, I would fire her and strongly consider speaking with the appropriate authorities citing possible emotional abuse.

    I do not know J.K. Rowling, a single mom, to be any manner of authority on human sexuality.

    She writes from a woefully uninitiated standpoint regarding The Occult, a fact which most have overlooked due to her successfully hiding her ignorance behind clouding The Occult into a "Fairy Tale".

    The franchise took off at a time when our nation and world needed a quaint "good will always win out over evil" fairy tale.

    The fact that J.K. Rowling now wants to slather her concepts regarding human sexuality onto a fictional character after the fact; while this character has already been so widely accepted by children across the globe is offensive because it is, after all, a children's story and not a political platform.

    Mixing the two is the stuff of brainwash and we should object.

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:27:13 AM

      He's not gay because he loved a man. He's gay and he was in love with a man. "In love with" is more than just "loves."

      If he's the quaint example of "good," why does this detail change that? That says more about your stance than hers.

  • Posted By: phaerelastra @ 10/24/2007 9:08:39 AM

    I am horrified by the suggestion that Dumbledore would be gay. This is a series of CHILDREN'S books, and I find it inappropriate that my 8 year-old would have to question me about what "gay" means if she found out something like this. Sexuality, whether it is straight or gay, does not belong in these books or anything else designed for children. Don't kids have the right to maintain their innocence instead of being involved in adult issues? It's one thing to mention who gets married in the end, because that deems no explanation. But to exploit characters that are dearly loved by people across the globe...just to make a few more bucks? Utterly deplorable.

    • Posted By: HuneycuttL@missouri.edu @ 10/24/2007 10:24:30 AM

      Why do you think she was trying to "exploit" these characters to make a few more bucks. These are her characters, from her imagination. She says she always imagined Dumbledore as gay. She gets to do that. You can imagine him as "not gay." And I don't know what kind of bubble your eight year old lives in that she hasn't heard the term and wondered what it meant. Better the explanation should come from you than from another eight year old.

      • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:12:26 AM

        Several straight characters throughout the books have kissed--a lot--and more is hinted at.
        It is now revealed that one gay character fell for someone, which wasn't explicitly mentioned in the books, and we have no reason to believe that *anything* sexual happened.

        The first is acceptable but the second destroys kids' innocence by exposing them to sexuality?

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:10:35 AM

      Straight characters in the book kiss several times and more is hinted at.
      We now have one gay character who fell for someone, and we have no reason to believe that there is anything sexual to it.

      The first was ok but the second destroys kids' innocence and exposes them to sexuality?

  • Posted By: liquidvoid @ 10/22/2007 5:33:32 PM

    Every year, ordinary people who seem straight come out as gay, and there is all this surprise. In truth, the person is the same person, the only real difference being that they now have one less secret to carry around. Rowling is, essentially, doing the same thing here. Everyone looked up to Dumbledore, saw him as an admirable character, and few, if any, ever spent any time thinking about his sexuality. What would your perception of Dumbledore been if she'd stated it specifically in one of the earlier books. Would he then be "the gay wizard"? You probably never thought of him as "the straight wizard". He was known for his wisdom and understanding and his great skill, earning him the rightful recognition as one of the most powerful wizards of all time. This was the important thing. Gay people tend to have an inner battle with the "I don't want to live a lie and have this dirty secret" vs "I don't want to be categorized as the gay dude, as the first, defining element in my identity." Sexuality is an important part of an individual's personality, but it's also a part that is largely none of many peoples business. So..to those of you who suddenly feel cheated and disappointed...why? What if this was a real life situation? Someone YOU looked up to? Would you suddenly forget everything else about them, and now think of them as only a gay person? I think what Rowling has done here is brilliant. There was never any actual hiding it in the books. It just wasn't stated outright because it wasn't all that relevant. Yet everyone made assumptions, and now she springs a surprise that pushes your buttons and takes you out of your comfort zone. You have to rethink what you knew and thought about this character and how you feel about him. Some of you are so weakminded, that you just give up and feel crushed, you feel that the wonderful thing Dumbledore was has now been tainted. Well...guess whose problem that is? Its yours. You deal with it. The books are finished. Rowling has no regrets. You can't change anything here. So if you want to let that sour you, then that's a choice you make.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 9:45:00 PM

      Let me get this straight. It was an important yet unrelevant part of his character that JKR left up to her readers imaginations but now after the books have been published it was important (and apparently worthy of applause) for her to include this controversial tidbit about his sexual orientation in an answer to a yes or no question. The child didn't ask "who was Dumbledore in love with" merely if he had ever known true love. And yes he was a great wizard and a true hero but that statement has definitely diminshed his character. Instead of imagining all the wonderful things Dumbledore did in the fictional world of HP the only thing people will now be able to imagine is Dumbledore buggering Grindlewald. Whether you like it or not this image disgusts most heterosexuals. By simply not disclosing that bombshell in her books she was hiding it. If she wanted to have Dumbledore be a gay character she should have written him as such in her books. He simply wasn't written one way or the other. As you said it was irrelevant. So tell me why it suddenly became something relevant. Why did she need to take that aspect of him away from her readers imaginations? The tactic was deceptive on JKR's part and she waited to disclose that info simply because it would have hurt the sales of her books. What does that say about her support for homosexuals? And as you said the books are finished so she along with the rest of us "can't change anything here" which is exactly what she is attempting to do. Those characters only belong to her as written. It's up to her readers to imagine whatever past or future those characters have lead/will lead that wasn't expressed or implied (and this was neither) in her writing.

  • Posted By: potterfanatic @ 10/24/2007 3:24:55 PM

    I agree with J.K. 100%. Just because he is gay doesn't mean you still can't love him. She is the author of the series and she makes the books, so that means that was her decision to make, and no one elses. I am not saying i wish he was gay, i am just saying that she is proving you can still be a well-acomplished, well rounded person and still be gay. That has nothing to do with who you really are inside and how you treat people. I mean look at him. He is just so awesome. J.K. has all the right in the world to do what she did and as a Potter fan i am behind her all the way.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 4:26:45 PM

      I think most of us still love the character as written. The problem is Dumbledore was not written as either straight or gay. He was just kind old Dumbledore. If she wanted to make him homosexual she should have done so in her writing. To do so after the books are in the public domain and the characters already have unwritten past and/or future lives in the minds of her readers is an idiotic political ploy to fool people into believing her to be a tolerant progressive minded individual. Once those characters are in the public domain those characters, and especially anything unwritten about them, belong to the readers. Yes Dumbledore is an awesome character as he was written. To have made him gay in the books would have diminshed his greatness and more importantly hurt the sales of JKR's books (which is why she didn't do it). And if he was truly gay how could he be considered a well rounded person if he spent his whole life in the closet.

      • Posted By: HuneycuttL@missouri.edu @ 10/24/2007 5:43:56 PM

        I don't think she needed to "make" him homosexual in her writing, because his sexuality really wasn't part of the story. She, like many authors, imagines "backstories" for her characters -- she's had several of those backstories (such as for the Weasley family and for Dean Thomas) on her website for years. She imagined Dumbledore as gay as she was writing him, and that letter that he wrote to Grindelwald that Rita Skeeter quoted makes more sense in context now, but the sexual attraction that Dumbledore felt for Grindelwald wasn't something that Harry would have been privy to, so it had no place in the ooks.

  • Posted By: Potterwatch @ 10/24/2007 12:41:09 PM

    No! I don't want Dumbledore to be Gay, I read this book for almost half my life and it suddenly sprag up a well known character to be gay.

  • Posted By: Potterwatch @ 10/24/2007 12:37:21 PM

    Hehe Dumby and Grindy

  • Posted By: DigificWriter @ 10/24/2007 12:29:00 PM

    I haven't seen anything anywhere else that supports this article's claim that JKR specifically said that Dumbledore's love for Grindelwald was unrequited.

  • Posted By: Potterwatch @ 10/24/2007 11:27:23 AM

    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Nooooooooooooooooooo:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

  • Posted By: Potterwatch @ 10/24/2007 11:19:47 AM

    I can't take it in, Dumbledor can't be a Gay! I had always valued JK Rowling as a model in my mind but now I think she is completely insane! She killed lots of people in book 7 and now she's making dumbledor a gay! Argggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

  • Posted By: tangleswithtigers @ 10/21/2007 11:09:48 AM

    What part of 'judge not lest ye be judged' did you people miss? There's nothing wrong with the books just because a character ended up being gay. Actually, I'm happy about it. Now all we need is for Sirius and Remus to be outed, and the fandom will rejoice. Anyone who would stop liking the books just because one of the characters has a 'personality flaw' is a close-minded moron. Why does it matter if someone is gay as long as they're not hurting anyone? It doesn't change anything about Dumbledore that he liked blokes. It's just another dimension of his character. To add on to that. Do you people REALLY think that JK NEEDS more money? She's probably completely happy as she is. She was just trying to do something for the fans when she let out more information about her characters. Most of us have loved them and grown up with them as the books were being released. Also, anyone who thinks that the books didn???t have anything about Dumbledore's sexuality must have been trying really hard not to see the chemistry between him and Gellert. The entirety of the fandom that had any sort of leanings in that direction was producing fanart for WEEKS afterward. Go ahead and burn your books. Why would JK care if you destroy an investment that totals to over two hundred dollars if you figure that they were thirty dollars a book. Also, all of you religious freaks need to remember that your beloved bible was translated by a man who hated women and homosexuals and KILLED anyone who translated a bit in a way that he disapproved of. If you can read the original transcriptions and are fluent in every language that it was written in, then I???ll listen to you when you tell me that the good book says that homosexuality is wrong. Until then, sit down and shut up because you don???t know what you???re talking about.

    • Posted By: Saffiepoosterdo @ 10/21/2007 2:30:52 PM

      Rock on!!! That was the most educated post I've heard yet!

      • Posted By: phaerelastra @ 10/24/2007 10:03:11 AM

        It is your lack of education that makes you think that this post is in any way intelligent. I quoted it earlier, but you need to read Roman 2:26-32. Not only does it describe why it's wrong, it also says that those who sympathize with these sinners are condemned to death as well. So to say that someone will not read the books any more, they are completely correct in that line of thinking if they want to prevent sin from coming into their life. I have read every book, several times over, and never once was there an appearance of any KIND that Dumbledore was involved with Gellert. If you saw that, you're reading too much into the text. And if King James II was a woman hater, than why would he force a passage into the Bible to keep men away from sleeping with their same sex, if that's what you think happened. History is full of murder, hatred, sin, and death. It was also full of heroes and prophets that did things based on the will of God. King James was dealt with when he met God, so don't judge him either. Women ARE the basis for original sin, so maybe his view was not unwarranted. Try reading your Bible in English, and maybe it will make sense to you. Or maybe you could spend the time to learn Sumerian, Hebrew or Aramaic and ensure for yourself that God is telling you something specific.

        Or maybe it's just not your place to question. Don't force your lack of beliefs on others, lest ye be judged by God Himself.

  • Posted By: Sinjid777 @ 10/20/2007 9:54:23 PM

    I would also like to comment that christians don't beleive that gay people are, as skinsthunder says "evil" we beleive it is a sin to be gay. Women were made for men and it is a great insult to god that men have relations with men.

    • Posted By: agnessa @ 10/22/2007 3:36:54 PM

      I find the "women were created for men" phrase a bit insulting and, frankly, quite stupid. Sounds like someone hasn't studed the history of religion - us women are always evil temptresses and we were created simply for a man's pleasure - you will find this trend in all major religious beliefs beginning with recorded history. Please. It's 2006 now. Nobody made me. I was created through a natural process. Biology, what a concept...

      And people need to get over this whole "Harry Potter is evil" thing. It's called "fiction writing". You might as well get all up in arms over any book that makes people think and enjoy reading. I am so glad that I am an atheist and don't have to deal with people like you.

      • Posted By: phaerelastra @ 10/24/2007 9:44:36 AM

        Eve was created from the rib of Adam to be his companion. She committed the original sin...so yeah, women are temptresses and portrayed as evil in history. Some women have earned that title. Men are often portrayed as vicious killers and adulterers, so don't feel so bad. It shouldn't offend you that history is richly filled with sin. And your "natural process of biology"....say thank you to the Man upstairs for that one, sweetheart. Wouldn't hurt you to crack a Book once in a while and actually know what you're talking about. And BTW, it's 2007....I think you lost a year somewhere...

  • Posted By: AndyLew @ 10/24/2007 8:53:00 AM

    This is nothing more than a sad publicity stunt. Why in the world the gay community is celebrating this is beyond me. In my eyes, its an insult. There is nothing in the books to truly support what clearly only exists in Rowling's post-Potter mind. Gay Pride is not a post script. It isn't a "Oh by the way.." The gay community should be outraged, not lauding the untrue confessions of Rowling who is just intent on selling more books.

  • Posted By: AndyLew @ 10/24/2007 8:49:52 AM

    I am astonished that the gay community is celebratory rather than outraged at this recent publicity stunt to gain more readers. How dare this author take a sensitive issue like this and say that she included it in her books -- when in reality the only place it exists is in her post-series imagination. Its sad. The gay community should be screaming bloody murder not clapping their hands in joy as if some victory as been won. This is a postscript. A defeat. And a sad ploy by Rowlings.

  • Posted By: FatherlyOne @ 10/23/2007 9:24:54 PM

    Were it not for my daughter being so emeshed in the Harry Potter series, I would have little more than a laugh over this because it ranks up there with the speculation over whether or not Batman and Robin or Gillian and The Skipper were queer.

    However, sine my daughter has become involved in The Franchise, I was thinking about what I really feel concerning the matter of JK Rowling's recent "outing" of her fictional character in her children's book and this is what I have come up with:

    One man "loving" another man does not make him homosexual, gay or whatever other title we use to brand this type of affection, in the absence of the thought necessary to reach past such socio-political nomenclature with which we are being herded.

    This opinion as expressed by J.K Rowling, that a man who loves another man is "gay" is dangerous. She has not written subtext into her story which, to date, would illustrate her character???s sexual orientation ??? yet, upon her stating that he loved another man she labels him gay.

    What of the love of hero worship,of sons who love their fathers or brothers who love brothers or male students who have feelings of love for their professors ??? this cannot all be so conveniently defined (if not pandering to the political gay agenda) as "gay".

    I see a clear distinction between them and to willfully cloud the distinction is offensive. It is further a violation of trust when is comes from someone who is spinning yarns to our children.

    If my nanny told my daughter after reading her Little Red Riding Hood, that the Wolf who was disguised as granny was queer, I would fire her and strongly consider speaking with the appropriate authorities citing possible emotional abuse.

    I do not know J.K. Rowling, a single mom, to be any manner of authority on human sexuality.

    She writes from a woefully uninitiated standpoint regarding The Occult, a fact which most have overlooked due to her successfully hiding her ignorance behind clouding The Occult into a "Fairy Tale".

    The franchise took off at a time when our nation and world needed a quaint "good will always win out over evil" fairy tale.

    The fact that J.K. Rowling now wants to slather her concepts regarding human sexuality onto a fictional character after the fact; while this character has already been so widely accepted by children across the globe is offensive because it is, after all, a children's story and not a political platform.

    Mixing the two is the stuff of brainwash and we should object.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 10:59:13 PM

      I agree with almost everything you've said Fatherlyone except for two things. First I don't think the subject matter of the books can be branded as "The Occult". It's much closer to a really long and complex fairy tale or mythical story. JKR isn't trying to teach kids about voodoo and black magic. Yes black magic is a minor element in the story but it certainly doesn't define the books as works of Occult fiction. It's a long and complex fairy tale. That brings me to my second disagreement which is the notion that the books are all children's stories. The first two books could perhaps be branded as such. Considering the rather more mature themes (slavery, opression, tyrany, murder, betrayal, tolerance, the bonds of family and friends, and above all else the power of love to overcome evil) and the somewhat advanced vocabulary of the latter books however that argument falls short. Obviously these stories have been read by many children but I'd wager (judging from the crowds gathered at Barnes and Noble for the release of the last book) that at least half the readers are over 18. That said the sexual orientation of Dumbledore still has no place (and indeed does not appear in) the books. and the characters of those books have no place being used as political tools to indoctrinate young people into JKR's offensive and inflammatory views on human sexuality. And clearly men can love other men and not be gay. A man cannot however be in love with another man and not be gay. That's the definition of the word and that's what she said (that she always imagined Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald). Obviously this was a political ploy on her part and it is shameful that she feels the need to slap this on such a beloved fictional character after both his fictional death and his acceptance by so many (including many children) across the globe.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 10:59:08 PM

      I agree with almost everything you've said Fatherlyone except for two things. First I don't think the subject matter of the books can be branded as "The Occult". It's much closer to a really long and complex fairy tale or mythical story. JKR isn't trying to teach kids about voodoo and black magic. Yes black magic is a minor element in the story but it certainly doesn't define the books as works of Occult fiction. It's a long and complex fairy tale. That brings me to my second disagreement which is the notion that the books are all children's stories. The first two books could perhaps be branded as such. Considering the rather more mature themes (slavery, opression, tyrany, murder, betrayal, tolerance, the bonds of family and friends, and above all else the power of love to overcome evil) and the somewhat advanced vocabulary of the latter books however that argument falls short. Obviously these stories have been read by many children but I'd wager (judging from the crowds gathered at Barnes and Noble for the release of the last book) that at least half the readers are over 18. That said the sexual orientation of Dumbledore still has no place (and indeed does not appear in) the books. and the characters of those books have no place being used as political tools to indoctrinate young people into JKR's offensive and inflammatory views on human sexuality. And clearly men can love other men and not be gay. A man cannot however be in love with another man and not be gay. That's the definition of the word and that's what she said (that she always imagined Dumbledore was in love with Grindlewald). Obviously this was a political ploy on her part and it is shameful that she feels the need to slap this on such a beloved fictional character after both his fictional death and his acceptance by so many (including many children) across the globe.

  • Posted By: lollygagger @ 10/23/2007 10:12:43 PM

    Wow. Can we dial down the hatred here? Just becaue someone doesn't hold the same opinion that you hold, that doesn't make them stupid, or evil, or ... as one vocabulary-challenged poster put it ... "a sack of crap." I don't think Dumbledore's sexual orientation was a particularly necessary revelation either, but it's not going to make me pop a vein. I think I'm going to go online to look for a soup kitchen that needs my help. That is, I think there are other causes that perhaps deserve more of our attention than whether or not a fictional character (who, just two days ago, many people thought was a wonderful example of a kind, compassionate person) was or was not gay in a make-believe world. Breathe, people ... breathe.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse