Rowling Says Dumbledore Is Gay

Newsweek Web Exclusive

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Shinji @ 10/27/2007 1:45:11 PM

    I think it is clear that there is no dominant religion present neither in the Harry Potter series. If you comprehend Rowling's intentions clearly, she made sure to avoid mentioning the presence of any type of higher being from any religion, especially when her characters refer to the after-life, which is a universal concept across all religions even for those without religious convictions. As you noticed even meeting in the train station there were no angels, no saints, it is simply the universal concept that those that passed away are omnipresent in a place no religious books need to explain. So why are you correlating Harry Potter to a certain religion which the author so intentionally and consciously meant not to do?

  • Posted By: Shinji @ 10/27/2007 1:11:51 PM

    I think it is clear that there is no dominant religion present neither in the Harry Potter series. If you comprehend Rowling's intentions clearly, she made sure to avoid mentioning the presence of any type of higher being from any religion, especially when her characters refer to the after-life, which is a universal concept across all religions, even for those without religious convictions. As you noticed even meeting in the train station there were no angels, no saints, it is simply the universal concept that those that passed away are omnipresent in a place no religious books need to explain to us. So why are you correlating Harry Potter to a certain religion which the author so intentionally and consciously meant not to do?

  • Posted By: Shinji @ 10/27/2007 1:09:53 PM

    I think it is clear that there is no dominant religion present neither in the Harry Potter series. If you comprehend Rowling's intentions clearly, she made sure to avoid mentioning the presence of any type of higher being from any religion, especially when her characters refer to the after-life, which is a universal concept across all religions even for those without religious convictions. As you noticed even meeting in the train station there were no angels, no saints, it is simply the universal concept that those that passed away are omnipresent in a place no religious books need to explain. So why are you correlating Harry Potter to a certain religion which the author so intentionally and consciously meant not to do?

  • Posted By: jerri4000 @ 10/26/2007 5:35:40 PM

    Being gay doesn't mean that he had never been in love, so I don't know why she didn't just answer the question asked. Also, if he is gay, that does not mean he is in to little boys.

  • Posted By: JrN88tion @ 10/25/2007 9:12:22 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: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:33:17 PM

      Eh? Kindhearted headmasters that many respected and admired throughout the series have sexual orientations too, y'know. Everyone does.

      And she's hardly trying to stay in the spotlight. She's going to book signings, and people are asking her questions about details that didn't make it into the books because they weren't directly relevant to the story. She's answering them. Lots of authors do that. Someone asked her this question.

      She answered lots of questions, and has been doing so for a while. The media explosion is... weird, but not something that she did. For all I know, she's answered this same question hundreds of times before.

      • Posted By: natpraise @ 10/25/2007 10:33:08 PM

        BTW- Dumbledore isn't real. He's a fictional character. Just thought you might want to know

  • Posted By: Let'sBeThinking @ 10/25/2007 8:31:55 AM

    Oh for goodness sakes!! I thought this was a series for kids and teens. Why do they need to know how he likes his sex!??

    • Posted By: Hypnosis @ 10/25/2007 1:29:00 PM

      Well, you're a perverted person. Sexuality is not only about sex, sweetheart, it's about love. But I suppose everything you see around you is about sex... ah, poor, poor you, can't be easy living in this century...

      • Posted By: potterfanatic @ 10/25/2007 9:40:46 PM

        you just aren't very starfishie now are you and you probalbly don't even know what that means and i can see how

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:34:54 PM

      They don't, since he didn't have any relationships in the story.
      They didn't, until someone asked her.
      His orientation is left unanswered in the book, and I know I never thought to ask, and I'm no kid--but it was a kid that asked, wasn't it?

  • Posted By: YouAreNotAlwaysRight @ 10/21/2007 10:29:06 PM

    I find it amusing, unowen7, that people like you lurk in places where the words 'homosexuality' or 'witchcraft' are even so much as mentioned, only to tear down those who believe differently from you. First and foremost, if you don't "approve" of what's being discussed here, then why are you reading it? Second, you claim not to judge, and yet you come here and spew your Bible-thumping garbage all over the place, to bother people who just came to read an article. You don???t have to like it???no one is asking you to. But your holier-than-thou attitude is not just overbearing and plainly annoying, but it???s ignorant. JK Rowling is welcome to do what she will, and you can sit up on your pedestal and quote the Bible until the cows come home, and it won???t change anything. I???m certain you think you???re very devout, but you might want to assess yourself before you claim not to judge others, while drowning us in your tired, overused redderick.

    The Bible says that many things are "not right", but at the same time, women with intelligence are in certain places in your great book are claimed as evil, and if your children disobey you, says the Bible, you should stone them to death. It is a sin to eat anything with a cloven hoof, or shellfish, because they come from the mud and are therefore impure, and working on a day of Sabbath is a hell-worthy offense. So, the next time one of your siblings or your friends??? children makes a mistake, will you pummel them to death with rocks, to prove you are a "good" follower of God? You cannot pick and choose what is true and what is not. If that is dated, then so is the rest of the book and all of your arguments with it. If that is true, then of course you don???t consume shellfish or pork, you execute all naughty children, wear only cotton and never work on Sunday. Right?

    The Word of God in the end preaches of forgiveness, and each to their own. There are set standards???don???t kill people, don???t steal, and generally don???t be stupid???but the Bible is a symbolic basis, not a roadmap to how every single person should live their lives. It also does not ask the "overly-devout" to take their beliefs and beat the rest of us over the head with it.

    If you choose to be that way, so be it, but the next time you eat bacon or out at the Red Lobster, or wear anything with more than one type of fiber in it, remember, by your own standards, that makes you a sinner. So, enjoy.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 9:07:44 PM

      If you can actually quote for me the passage in the bible that says that intelligent women are evil (I think you got that tidbit from The DaVinci Code; both intelligent men and women are portrayed as evil in the bible based solely on their actions) or that we should beat our children to death with rocks (while elsewhere stating "Thou shalt not kill") I'll believe you. Until then I'm going to go with the notion that that statement is a load of crap. Also I think the word you were looking for was "rhetoric" not "redderick". As for the ban on certain foods: that was based on the prevelance of food borne diseases in that time (pigs can give you trichinosis, shellfish can give you pathogenic E. coli or other gastrointestinal illnesses) and the bible was an excellent tool to prevent the spread of those diseases.

      • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:49:16 PM

        I always figured that the shellfish was due to allergies, and that the pig thing was more of a knee-jerk reaction to them being "dirty" then to the diseases. I guess I was kinda close on the shellfish thing.

        Learn somethin' every day.

  • Posted By: binary @ 10/22/2007 4:33:16 PM

    Hello world! I???m straight! Does anyone hear that often? If homosexuals should be viewed as no different than hetersexuals then for Christ sake quit announcing it like it???s some kind of big deal! All JK is doing by announcing Dumbledore???s sexual prefrence is bringing attention to the differences in homosexuality. If they are to be treated equally in society, grouping them into compartments doesn???t seem like a useful approach. Here???s a brilliant thought.. focus on the commonality that we all share by simply being human.















    Here???s a brilliant thought.. focus on the commonality that we all share by simply being human.

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:47:29 PM

      She didn't announce it. Someone asked her. One of many questions she's answering about details that weren't directly mentioned in the books. Lots of authors do that.

  • Posted By: Mr Guenzel @ 10/22/2007 6:40:42 PM

    I've often thought, more than a little seriously, that the venerable Faust legend was not so much of a legend after all. There seems to be no other explanation to account for the success of the "Harry Potter" books. We are dealing here with an author of only middling ability, with books that are peurile in the extreme, and totally charmless at that, and yet they enjoy this apparent success. And now Miss Rowling tops the cake by announcing that her literary hero is a homosexual - and is quite content about that.

    Let Miss Rowling revel in her banalities and her celebration of buggery. For me and my children, we will stick to Dickens.

    • Posted By: miss tara @ 10/22/2007 9:09:33 PM

      Well, just ONE of Miss Rowling's books sold 8.3 million copies in its first 24 hours. I'd like to see how many world wide sensations YOU'VE created. And you're entitled to your opinion, I just find it funny you act so high-and-mighty, when your opinion is the minority. As Rowling has said, you guys hate her, but it's sure good advertising!

      • Posted By: c3227 @ 10/23/2007 11:37:12 AM

        You think the majority of parents want a hidden gay character in the books they buy for their children. Your sick! What arrogance for people to take it upon themselves to deceive children into thinking that gay is normal. If that were true no deception would be necessary!

        • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:41:52 PM

          So what you're saying is that Dumbledore never did anything that you disapproved of and seemed perfectly upright, then turned out to be gay. Thus, you were decieved.

          Perhaps instead you learned something? Dumbledore preaches the power of love to concur evil--love, not sex. He never said anything about sex. He was still gay.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/24/2007 9:56:31 PM

      Actually she's an incredibly talented author and her characters are quite charming. Even Dumbledore, who if you've read the books you'd know wasn't actually made gay until after the series finished, is quite charming. Of course most of us didn't want Dumbledore to be gay but she certainly didn't celebrate buggery in her books. That's part of the reason why this is so shocking and angering to many fans. They feel as though they have been decieved into liking and accepting someone they would have otherwise had more reserved feelings towards.

    • Posted By: miss tara @ 10/22/2007 9:24:33 PM

      Well, just ONE of Miss Rowling's books sold 8.3 million copies in its first 24 hours. I'd like to see how many world wide sensations YOU'VE created. And you're entitled to your opinion, I just find it funny you act so high-and-mighty, when your opinion is the minority. As Rowling has said, you guys hate her, but it's sure good advertising!

  • Posted By: Disgusted! @ 10/25/2007 1:33:04 PM

    I have read ALL the Potter Books -- which I sincerely regret ! I held these books up to my grandchildren who also read all the books. I defended them to friends who thought they condoned witchcraft. This announcement that Dumbledore is "Gay" is very disappointing to me and I shall not see the last movie nor read anything else JK ever writes. She is a bottom-feeder who has done this simply to prolong the money flow from her now exhausted stock of Potterism. What a terrible thing to do after the fact.

    • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 6:22:14 PM

      So you liked everything he ever did and saw him as a good moral person, until you learned that he was gay. Gay the whole time, when he was doing all those things you like and appearing to be a good moral person. He didn't change at all.

      Maybe, just maybe, this is a good point to look at. He was a wonderful, brave, heroic, good man. You condemn him, and the author who would dare to mention his existance, because the one person he fell for was male? That doesn't make any sense--and doesn't fit any kind of morality I have ever heard of.

    • Posted By: Dragonhunter @ 10/25/2007 2:28:23 PM

      Why? Beacuse Dumbledore is a human being? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Harry Potter is a fantastic Christian allegory and Rowling's latest revelation does not change that. Dumbledore is human, humans are not perfert. I do not condone homosexual behavior, but I also don't approve of sex outside of marraige. Humans are weak and give in to sins, this information just proves to me that Dumbledore is human and as such I approve.

    • Posted By: Hypnosis @ 10/25/2007 2:24:54 PM

      Oh, so you CAN read? Really. One comment is quite enough, dear. And you can call JK how many names you wish to. I don't think she cares. She won't go "omg, an anonymous person called me something wierd, now I have to DIE". And no matter WHAT you write, you can't really hide that jealousy... you want money. And you think she got them by doing nothing but crap. Try writing a book of your own. I'm sure people are interested in someone who can spell "bottom-feeder"

    • Posted By: jamez292 @ 10/25/2007 2:18:52 PM

      how can u think that shes doing this for the money? if there are 80 million other people who share your stupid opinion, then they arent goin to but the books are they. think about it u idiot.

  • Posted By: Izadorabul @ 10/25/2007 3:38:49 PM

    I have read and loved all the books and honestly was anticipating this bit of information from the begining bearing in mind that during most of Dumbledores life being a homosexual would have been concidered Taboo. The outlandish suit he would have been wearing to meet Tom Riddle was simply a way of letting other homosexuals know he was gay because back in the 30's and befor that even gay men and women would dress a certain way to let them know that that was their orientation
    PS in all honesty i always thought Collin Creevy was gay and im sorry he died

  • Posted By: Izadorabul @ 10/25/2007 3:24:18 PM

    I have read and loved all the books and have suspected this of dumbledore and bearing in mind that back when dumbledore was a youth this would be somthing thought of as Taboo im not surprised its not writen out in plain daylight for others to read. And on the coment of his purple suit when he goes to get riddle one of the only ways to let others of a homosexual nature know you were a seeker for there team was to dress a certain way
    PS i always thought Collin Creevy was gay and am so sad he died

  • Posted By: Wolfclaw @ 10/25/2007 3:01:06 PM

    Ugh, whatever. Gay, hetero, what the hell ever, it doesn't bother me one way or another. I do find it sort of odd that this was such an afterthought; it's as though JK was scouring the internet and decided to give in to the howls of crazed and rabid "yaoi" fans. What does bother me, ESPECIALLY as a homosexual ,myself, are all those creepy gay-worshippers out there who will take everything and anything with male characters into their sweaty little palms and twist it to suit their objectification of the sexuality. They're these deluded individuals who will take any excuse, any kind of brotherly love between men and twist it into something sexual, just so they can get their rocks off to it (See the "yaoi" fandom).


    I can't believe there are those out there who would condone such offensive behavior. That's not equality for homosexuals, that's clear and obvious objectification and exploitation for your own fantasies, which believe me, we want nothing to do with. More and more, though, they continue to delude themselves into thinking that their fantasies are somehow conducive to gay rights when all they are doing is debasing them further.

    Acceptance is the key, not objectification, nor putting on a pedestal. When are people going to get it through their heads?

  • Posted By: Wolfclaw @ 10/25/2007 2:59:31 PM

    Ugh, whatever. Gay, hetero, what the hell ever, it doesn't bother me one way or another. What does bother me, ESPECIALLY as a homosexual ,myself, are all the creepy gay-worshippers out there who will take everything and anything with male characters into their sweaty little palms and twist it to suit their objectification of the sexuality. They're these deluded individuals who will take any excuse, any kind of brotherly love between men and twist it into something sexual, just so they can get their rocks off to it (See the "yaoi" fandom).


    I can't believe there are those out there who would condone such offensive behavior. That's not equality for homosexuals, that's clear and obvious objectification and exploitation for your own fantasies, which believe me, we want nothing to do with. More and more, though, they continue to delude themselves into thinking that their fantasies are somehow conducive to gay rights when all they are doing is debasing them further.

    Acceptance is the key, not objectification, nor putting on a pedestal. When are people going to get it through their heads?

  • Posted By: artist25 @ 10/23/2007 2:23:18 AM

    This is retarded, everyone says that this is a big step for gay rights, blah blah blah. Seriously though, JK Rowling is doing nothing special here, people love gays and love to say that they support gay people. I'm really disappointed in JK Rowling for selling out like this, nobody needs to know what orientation Dumbledore, it is highly irrelevant! I am even more disgusted at the thought of this making it's way into the 7th movie :-/

    And no, I'm not a homophobe, I don't treat gays differently because they are gay, I just hate homosexuality. Harry Potter does not need this, the gay crowd simply wants this.

    and one of you geniuses out there made some sort of bizarre "observation" that heterosexuals talk about their love lives while having gays suppress their own, this is a pretty hefty generalization and you should be careful with who you point fingers at. I think just because of this, I'm gonna run around the streets wearing bland colors declaring that I love the opposite sex and I'm Straight and dang proud of it! Heck, I'm gonna throw a huge straight parade, it's gonna go in a straight line though the city and everyone that is heterosexual can come march! yeah, let's do this!

    • Posted By: obdreamer @ 10/23/2007 4:19:00 PM

      I would think that the statement "I just hate homosexuality" belies your declaration of not being a homophobe. The reference to having a "huge straight parade" smacks of idiocy and ignorance. I've heard the KKK issue similar statements "oh, we're just parading around celebrating our white heritage and pride".
      You're the exact reason gays NEED to push their presence, just to remind you that no matter how much you minimise and hate (your words) them, they're not going to go away

      • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 11:50:01 PM

        Yes gays just NEED to force their radical inflammatory views on human sexuality in the faces of all us homophobic normies. The idea of a huge straight parade is no more or less idiotic than a huge gay parade. Plus the man was being funny (i.e. joking) about the whole thing. Straight people don't feel the need to rub their sexual orientation in other peoples faces. Gays for some reason do. And the man didn't say "I just hate homosexuals". What he hates is the perverse lifestyle (nonmonogamous relationships, hardcore drug use, obsession with someones style rather than their intrinsic value as a person, causing the unchecked spread of the AIDS pandemic, buggering other males) that permeates gay culture. Just because you and others like you have chosen that lifestyle does not mean that any of us have to like it and we certainly don't want it shoved in our faces. That's what gays just don't get. If you want to be gay go ahead. No one's stopping you. No one is denying you your civil rights. You can still vote, speak your mind, find work, join the ACLU, whatever. We just don't want to hear about it. Do you expect us to label you heros because you get up every day and shove your homosexuality into your neighbors and coworkers faces. Most of us normies are tolerant of it and will treat you with the same respect that you show others. Absent a respect for others , especially those with different views than yourself you will recieve anger, disrespect, and intolerance from the normal community because that's what you display to the world.

        • Posted By: Imaydisagree @ 10/24/2007 2:02:13 AM

          Well written excellent argument. I just wanted to add one point to your response. obdreamer compared a straight parade to a KKK parade. How so, sir, is a gay parade different. You are just going around celebrating your gay pride! The KKK are not at killing blacks as they go through the streets, yet, they are still extremely threatening. As a person who, on a religious basis, does not agree with homosexuality I would say that your gay parades can be extremely threatening. NOT because the idea of thousands of gay people scares me but, because I feel that I am not free to express my opinion without fear of retaliation; either through physical means, or through verbal abuse and defamation. Each of these occurrences are a complete disregard and HATE of those that have differing opinions. The gay movement of today is not like the Civil Rights movements of MLK. It is more like the civil rights movement of the Black Panthers. It is a movement of hate and separation instead of unity and dialogue. That is not to say that the opposing side of the argument does any better. Bombarding people with hate and descriptions of how they are going to hell is not a way to facilitate openness and dialogue. As a Catholic, I do not believe that it is my job to tell you that you are going to hell. That does not mean that I will condone these actions. I will stand by my beliefs- that does not make me a hateful person.

          • Posted By: Scribbler @ 10/25/2007 12:52:55 AM

            Suggesting that people should go to Hell is pretty hateful. It's about as hateful as you can get, really.

            I especially like how you call people standing up for themselves "verbal retalliation" while hating people just for existing ("go to Hell" being pretty much the definition of hate, as far as I'm concerned) and telling them so is "expressing your views."

            • Posted By: Imaydisagree @ 10/25/2007 2:51:09 PM

              I suggest you re-read my post. I said that telling people that they are going to hell is NOT something that helps the situation. never in my post did I tell someone to go to hell. I said that anti-gay protesters can be extremely hateful and that is not acceptable at all.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 3:26:23 PM

      That last paragraph was the funniest thing I've read all week. Cheers mate!

  • Posted By: Dragonhunter @ 10/25/2007 2:22:53 PM

    Why? Beacuse Dumbledore is a human being? All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Harry Potter is a fantastic Christian allegory and Rowling's latest revelation does not change that. Dumbledore is human, humans are not perfert. I do not condone homosexual behavior, but I also don't approve of sex outside of marraige. Humans are weak and give in to sins, this information just proves to me that Dumbledore is human and as such I approve.

  • Posted By: JennyH720 @ 10/25/2007 1:10:41 PM

    I think its hilarious she tells us Dumbledore is gay... after all this time. :P Who knew?!

    • Posted By: Hypnosis @ 10/25/2007 1:46:10 PM

      She did, probably XD And it actually was because someone asked her, not because she thought of it herself - which proves she's been having this view for all this time XD

  • Posted By: yankee rebel @ 10/23/2007 1:09:44 PM

    The Harry Potter series is an instrument of evil, conditioning the generation to embrace the occult ,and now to promote sexual perversion.

    • Posted By: Rowan13 @ 10/25/2007 1:06:09 PM

      I am so sorry I even read the comments here!! What is truly disgusting is the hatred for your fellow man no matter who they are or what their sexual preferences are. You call yourselves good Christians, but Jesus did not teach us to hate and condemn others. What about "love thy brother" what about "he who is without sin may cast the first stone" Must be alot of perfect people here because there sure are alot of stones being cast. It's a disgrace.

    • Posted By: roonalwazlib @ 10/23/2007 4:16:24 PM

      It's exactly this kind of idiotic commentary from uninformed losers that gives the normal moderate fair minded Christians in this world such a hard time getting their message across. You are conforming almost exactly to the liberal media stereotype of a bigoted intolerant Christian. If you had read the books you would know that there is no mention of Dumbledores sexual orientation in them. He is not parading around in a rainbow colored robe promoting gay rights to children and telling them things like "being gay is okay" or talking in an effiminate voice and exclaiming the virtues of buggering your best friend. The only reason the character is gay now is because JKR can't keep her mouth shut to save all England and wants to stir up controversy over her books (while at the same time reducing our ability to imagine their unwritten pasts or futures as the case may be). The books are a work of fiction that predominately promote the power of love to conquer evil and opression. It is not a book of occult spells designed to turn Christians into evil devil worshipping gays. Just as I said to Jonny Xx : take your head out of your own @$$.

  • Posted By: TheLightningScar...Dun Dun Duuun! @ 10/25/2007 10:58:24 AM

    sooo not good!! i always thought of dumbledore as, yes kind and , yes extravagant with his robes but never gay!! and neville longbottom should've married Luna lovegood. hannah should've gone with ernie macmillan. katie bell with oliver wood, angelina johnson with lee whatever his name was (the friend of the twins), ron and hermione (duh), harry and Ginny (double duh), dean thomas and lavender brown, percy weasley and penelope clearwater, george weasley and verity (she works in his shop, says the 6th book) and malfoy with pansy parkinson.
    i know i'm sad, don't tell me!

  • Posted By: Potterwatch @ 10/24/2007 11:17:25 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: RemusLupin @ 10/25/2007 9:37:50 AM

      Don't take it as a fact!
      She doesn't "make" him gay. She already made everything she wanted in the books.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse