Dumbledore is gay

[robviti]

J.K. Rowling outs Hogwarts character

By Hillel Italie, AP National Writer | October 20, 2007

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.

The first one of you that makes a pedophile joke is going to get an Avada Kedavra curse hurled at his head, so watch it.

[Alexander]

The gay subtext was definitely present in "Deathly Hallows," so I'm not the least surprised.

Although I AM surprised that Rowling admitted it so readily.

[mikelz777]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

Edited October 22, 2007 by mikelz777

[Big Al]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

I absolutely 100% agree. Agree with Alex as well, but after reading this story, my first question was "What was the point of THAT?"

[ejp626]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

I absolutely 100% agree. Agree with Alex as well, but after reading this story, my first question was "What was the point of THAT?"

Well, she was asked at a reading about some of the backstory, and she responded. I don't see any problem with that. Second, she is making the claim that his misplaced love for Gellert Grindelwald did in fact have importance for the plot. So I don't see what the problem is. British literature is full of hidden and not-so-hidden discussions of schoolboy crushes and this is firmly in that tradition.

Edited October 22, 2007 by ejp626

[7/4]

eh...whatever.

[robviti]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

utterly disgusted? boy, you've got issues.

[Aggie87]

We've reached both extremes "couldn't be happier", and "utterly disgusted" already, in the first 3 posts in this thread. I could (couldn't?) care less about whether the character is gay.

If his sexuality is a factor in the story line, ok fine, move along. If it's not a factor, then why is there this big annoucement by Rowling? Seems like it's much ado about nothing - probably to keep the Potter franchise in the public eye more than anything else, during a lull between books and movies.

[Randy Twizzle]

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.

Sometimes people's time could be better spent drinking Ripple out of a paper bag.

[robviti]

We've reached both extremes "couldn't be happier", and "utterly disgusted" already, in the first 3 posts in this thread. I could (couldn't?) care less about whether the character is gay.

okay, maybe my subtitle was a bit over the top. when i read the article, i was pleased to see that a character who is powerful, intelligent, honorable, and kind - a character who is beloved by tens of millions of readers - is homosexual. his sexuality is not a big part of the overall plot, but it is significant in that it helps explain a pivotal relationship in his past that altered his life and came to have an impact on the rest of the wizarding world. rowling's disclosure wasn't grandstanding, it was a gesture that helped make dumbledore, a character shrouded in mystery, more understandable, more human to her readers. closets are for clothes, not people.

[Big Al]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

utterly disgusted? boy, you've got issues.

I just find the whole thing intellectually dishonest. There were SO many unanswered questions to the whole series, so many things that were forced to be left to the imagination. To isolate this one character and his sexuality is not only dishonest, it's cowardly: if it was that germane to the story, why wasn't it left in the book? We already know the answer to that one: public outcry would've been furious! (Then again, there's no such thing as bad publicity, so maybe it woudn't have hurt sales) However, that's no excuse to leave it out of the book.

Hey J.K., while we're at it, I'd like to know the sexual orientation of the following characters:

Sirius Black (he was awfully close to James Potter, and there's no record of him having any kind of heterosexual relationship with anyone)

Professor McGonigall (sp?) (she was the saddest about Professor Trelawney's leaving, and her fiercest defender)

Crabbe & Goyle (they were always together)

Neville Longbottom (sure he asked Ginny to the Ball, but look at his last name)

Percy Weasley (repressed his sexual desires by throwing himself into his work)

Of course I'm being ridiculous, and that's the point. See how silly this all is? I agree with this statement:

British literature is full of hidden and not-so-hidden discussions of schoolboy crushes and this is firmly in that tradition.

I just don't see why this also couldn't be left to the imagination like everything else was.

[edited because jazzshrink responded to his thread subtitle]

Edited October 22, 2007 by Big Al

[ghost of miles]

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.

Sometimes people's time could be better spent drinking Ripple out of a paper bag.

Sometimes? (hic)

[Tom Storer]

I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

According to the article:

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."

So yes, she did seem to intend to make some kind of a statement. If you have notoriety you're not allowed to make a statement? Seems like you should benefit from your notoriety if you want to make a statement. And a fine statement it was! Nothing disgusting or dishonest about it from what I can see.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Tom Storer

[Kevin Bresnahan]

I think Rowling's announcement was made after the book came out so that her sales wouldn't be hurt. She knows that if she included a direct homosexual reference in the books, there is no way it would have sold as well. Not a chance. The right wing would have been foaming at the mouth. She'd probably have death threats... she may have some now. Rather cowardly of her to do it this way.

As an avid reader of fantasy novels, it seems to me that lately it's a requirement to have a few gay men in every story. Funny thing is, it's almost always a female author and the gay characters are always men. Weird but true.

[porcy62]

I am suprised about the fact that so many dudes here are expert of Rowling's saga.

Anyway I always suspected that Mary Poppins was lesbian and that Dumbo was a liberal, but, you know how right wing was old Walt, he wouldn't admitted it even under torture.

[Tom Storer]

I think you folks are looking for things to criticize about this. Authors typically have a lot more "information" about their characters than they communicate in a book--there's a whole imaginative background that doesn't need to be spelled out but helps them create characters who are consistent in their behavior. Rowling mentioned this bit of background when answering a question from the audience, and also mentioned that she had headed off a bit of detail in the film-making that would have contradicted it. I don't see any need to make her out to be a disgusting, dishonest coward when it seems to me she was honest about her character and admirable in her message.

If she had "revealed" that the character was an adopted child or something, I'm not sure the same accusations would have been made. Somehow the fact that she imagined him gay gets people angry. Go figure.

Edited October 22, 2007 by Tom Storer

[mikelz777]

OK, I'll stick my chin out. I was utterly disgusted with the announcement. Dumbledore's sexuality is in no way germane to the story. It wasn't a plot point and didn't contribute to or advance the story. We have absolutely no reason for needing to know his sexuality. Why politicize it? Why sexualize it? I don't know what Rowling's motivations were but it seems pretty pathetic to use her notoriety if it was her intent to make some kind of statement.

utterly disgusted? boy, you've got issues.

I just find the whole thing intellectually dishonest. There were SO many unanswered questions to the whole series, so many things that were forced to be left to the imagination. To isolate this one character and his sexuality is not only dishonest, it's cowardly: if it was that germane to the story, why wasn't it left in the book? We already know the answer to that one: public outcry would've been furious! (Then again, there's no such thing as bad publicity, so maybe it woudn't have hurt sales) However, that's no excuse to leave it out of the book.

Hey J.K., while we're at it, I'd like to know the sexual orientation of the following characters:

Sirius Black (he was awfully close to James Potter, and there's no record of him having any kind of heterosexual relationship with anyone)

Professor McGonigall (sp?) (she was the saddest about Professor Trelawney's leaving, and her fiercest defender)

Crabbe & Goyle (they were always together)

Neville Longbottom (sure he asked Ginny to the Ball, but look at his last name)

Percy Weasley (repressed his sexual desires by throwing himself into his work)

Of course I'm being ridiculous, and that's the point. See how silly this all is? I agree with this statement:

British literature is full of hidden and not-so-hidden discussions of schoolboy crushes and this is firmly in that tradition.

I just don't see why this also couldn't be left to the imagination like everything else was.

[edited because jazzshrink responded to his thread subtitle]

Very well said Big Al and my thoughts exactly. What is it with people's obsession of having to sexualize everything even when it's totally unnecessary? This and the issue observed by Big Al is what I find utterly disgusting. Who cares what Dumbledore was sexually? It doesn't have to be homosexual. Fill in the blank-fetishist, voyeur, sadist, masochist, beastiality, etc., you name it, who cares?!? It doesn't matter to the story!! You'll note that I was referring to the politicizing/sexualizing issue as the focus of my disgust but just because it just happens to involve one of the hot button issues of the day I am automatically labeled as someone who has issues which implies that I am homophobic. I'm the one with issues? I'm not the one who manufactured that twist. Just curious jazzshrink, is it possible to disagree with you on one of your pet topics and not have an issue? I was wondering how long it would take someone to play that card and it turns out, not very long.

Edited October 22, 2007 by mikelz777

[Jim Alfredson]

... who cares?!? It doesn't matter to the story!!

Then why are you so upset about it?

[porcy62]

... who cares?!? It doesn't matter to the story!!

Then why are you so upset about it?

Because this is a very dangerous trend. What about if I discover that the heroes of my childhood turn out to be homosexuals? A serious attempt to my sexual indentity.

Please tell me that Goofy is heterosexual.

Edited October 22, 2007 by porcy62

[clifford_thornton]

[mikelz777]

... who cares?!? It doesn't matter to the story!!

Then why are you so upset about it?

Re-read the second sentence.

[Jim Alfredson]

That it doesn't matter to the story? Perhaps not, but as has been explained elsewhere in this thread, it does matter to the character's background and why he is the character that he is.

[mikelz777]

That it doesn't matter to the story? Perhaps not, but as has been explained elsewhere in this thread, it does matter to the character's background and why he is the character that he is.

Perhaps, though that is not apparent. It is more so because the author said so after the fact. He could have/would have been the same character even if he were not gay.

Edited October 22, 2007 by mikelz777

[Jim Alfredson]

Again, maybe, maybe not. I've never read the books, so I don't know. But it seems to me that if it's part of the character's backstory, then the author would make decisions on how the character acts in certain situations based on that backstory; so therefor, it would matter.

[Chuck Nessa]

The whole deal smells of "marketing" and that saddens me.