Dumbledore is gay

[tongue-tied]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/books/10/2...r.ap/index.html

 

i thought a few hints in the last book were a joke for older readers, but i guess he was really flat out homosexual.

[DAngerer09]

Wow, I never picked up on any of those hints at all. Never would have thought that. That's kind of lame she says stuff like that AFTER the books are done. Leave it to the readers' imaginations.

[explodo]

Kind of lame that this is news story.

[DAngerer09]

Well, enough people in the world love Harry Potter, so its relevant. Plus, it was in their "showbiz" section.

[Gobias Industries]

That is crazyyyyy.

[bobbob1313]

Gay witches? Jesus is gonna be pissed.

[Skian]

So is Tinky-Winky.

[darkstar]

I've never read the books or anything, but what the frig is the deal with this?

 

I could care less that a character is gay or whatever but does it add anything to the story or the plot? What's the point of this? If Rowling is trying to drum up publicity for the books that seems silly, what have these sold? Millions of copies? Just seems like she is doing this for the sake of doing it.

 

And if you thought people had a problem with these books before ( saying they are evil, full of witchcraft, etc) just wait. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth and wrining of hands over this. I don't get it....but what the hell it's her story.

[insideoutoflove]

this one's my personal favorite (from BBC)

And a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall added: "It's great that JK has said this. It shows that there's no limit to what gay and lesbian people can do, even being a wizard headmaster."

[caliber66]

[Beltmann]

I could care less that a character is gay or whatever but does it add anything to the story or the plot? What's the point of this? If Rowling is trying to drum up publicity for the books that seems silly, what have these sold? Millions of copies? Just seems like she is doing this for the sake of doing it.

Rowling clarified that Dumbledore's orientation relates directly to the issue of tolerance, which is, after all, one of the enduring themes of the series. (Consider how prejudice--towards Muggles, half-bloods, house-elves, centaurs, etc.--provides a major source of tension throughout all of the books.) Therefore, this adds another dimension to that theme. Making Dumbledore gay makes literary sense, and not just "for the sake of doing it."

[darkstar]

Rowling clarified that Dumbledore's orientation relates directly to the issue of tolerance, which is, after all, one of the enduring themes of the series. (Consider how prejudice--towards Muggles, half-bloods, house-elves, centaurs, etc.--provides a major source of tension throughout all of the books.) Therefore, this adds another dimension to that theme. Making Dumbledore gay makes literary sense, and not just "for the sake of doing it."

 

 

ahhhh....as I said I've never read the books thanks for the insight

[jenbobblehead]

It makes no sense, literary or otherwise. If Dumbledore was gay, and it was supposed to carry on the theme of tolerance then why was he closeted throughout the entire series? All the other "themes" of tolerance were played out in every single book. I just don't buy it. I think JK Rowling is making shit up.

[Analogman]

It's so church groups can buy and burn more books and hate her twice - once for writing satanic literature, and a second time for having a gay character.

[Gobias Industries]

It makes no sense, literary or otherwise. If Dumbledore was gay, and it was supposed to carry on the theme of tolerance then why was he closeted throughout the entire series? All the other "themes" of tolerance were played out in every single book. I just don't buy it. I think JK Rowling is making shit up.

 

She probably inadvertently laid the groundwork for Dumbledore's orientation throughout the series, and it didn't really come to her until after she finished. This is just tying up another "loose" end.

 

Apparently in the HBP movie script Dumbledore was eying himself a lady but Rowling had to "spill" the beans and had it cut out.

[H.Stone]

His sexual orientation was likely part of his character bio--the groundwork Rowling laid for each of the characters before writing the first book of the series. It's just part of who he was, and the fact that it never factored into any of the books in an overt way doesn't make it any less true. Every character has a rich background--the surface of which isn't even scratched in the actual work. So for her to acknowledge, after the fact, that he was gay just means that it somehow came up--maybe as suggested by the above post. She knows her characters in ways even the most impressive student of the series never will.

[Beltmann]

It makes no sense, literary or otherwise. If Dumbledore was gay, and it was supposed to carry on the theme of tolerance then why was he closeted throughout the entire series? All the other "themes" of tolerance were played out in every single book. I just don't buy it. I think JK Rowling is making shit up.

Was he indeed closeted? Or was his orientation just never made explicit, one way or the other? (I don't recall Mad-eye Moody's sexuality ever being discussed, either--perhaps he was a closeted heterosexual?) It's reasonable to argue that a more explicit exploration would have better promoted the theme of tolerance, but must every aspect of a theme be "major" and explored fully? Why can't the texture of a theme have both major and minor aspects? I don't see why Dumbledore's orientation shouldn't be a very minor beam in the overall support of a major theme--especially in a children's series that never explores sexuality in any form besides superficial adolescent innocence. The series has consistently kept the subject of sex, gay or straight, at a distance, and so the relative silence regarding Dumbledore's orientation strikes me as less an act of "closeting" than an act of maintaining that distance.

[jenbobblehead]

Was he indeed closeted? Or was his orientation just never made explicit, one way or the other? (I don't recall Mad-eye Moody's sexuality ever being discussed, either--perhaps he was a closeted heterosexual?) It's reasonable to argue that a more explicit exploration would have better promoted the theme of tolerance, but must every aspect of a theme be "major" and explored fully? Why can't the texture of a theme have both major and minor aspects? I don't see why Dumbledore's orientation shouldn't be a very minor beam in the overall support of a major theme--especially in a children's series that never explores sexuality in any form besides superficial adolescent innocence. The series has consistently kept the subject of sex, gay or straight, at a distance, and so the relative silence regarding Dumbledore's orientation strikes me as less an act of "closeting" than an act of maintaining that distance.

but then why say something about it now? It seems that she just said it to say it, not because it was necessarily "true" and of course she can say whatever she wants now about how she envisioned the character all this time, but it comes across, to me, as just being crap she spewed at a book signing. I appreciate that as the creator, she gets to say who is what, but I find the whole thing just so false sounding and i continue not to buy it. I don't think the books are that subtle, frankly, they did pursue relationships outside of adolescence--The Weasley Parents' relationship, Hagrid and Mme Maxim, Tonks and Lupin, to name a few. And the entire James, Lily, Severus triangle was ALL about relationship. So to just drop this bomb that Dumbledore was gay just doesn't work for me. I didn't "see" it at all.

[mkush001]

not that there's anything wrong with that

[tongue-tied]

there would be no reason to mention Dumbledore's orientation before the seventh book because that's where his relationship with Grindelwald is revealed (along with practically everything else about D's background). it's very clear the two are taken with each other whether or not it extended into sexual relations. so there was a three month gap between the last book and Rowling's answer. maybe Rowling wanted enough time for people to read and digest the end of the series, or maybe this was the first time since she was asked a straightforward question about Dumbledore's romantic life.

 

edit: i'm going to get some fresh air now that i've thoughtfully considered a children's book wizard's sex life.

[Atticus]

next week we learn that one of the students was a pre-op tranny. I won't spoil the party...

[Beltmann]

but then why say something about it now?

Because the topic happened to arise, and because Book 7 finally has the most hints of Dumbledore's orientation. To me, it doesn't seem odd that Rowling waited so long to publicly confirm it. The relevant question is, Why assume that Dumbledore must, by default, be heterosexual? Why are the heterosexual characters allowed to not be overtly identified as such, while a homosexual character must?

 

[the books] did pursue relationships outside of adolescence--The Weasley Parents' relationship, Hagrid and Mme Maxim, Tonks and Lupin, to name a few. And the entire James, Lily, Severus triangle was ALL about relationship.

Those listed relationships only confirm my contention that the series avoids sexuality as a serious subject. Those relationships might be about love, romance, devotion, or commitment, but none of them are given any kind of sexual dimension. On the page, they are largely chaste. In consistent fashion, Dumbledore is given a relationship, with Gellert Grindelwald, that echoes the kind of devotion found in the other couplings, and in consistent fashion, the sexual dimension of the relationship is kept off-stage.

 

I didn't "see" it at all.

But there were fan rumblings long ago about Dumbledore's orientation. Clearly some people did see it along the way. My suspicions didn't arrive until Book 7, and I'll concede that, at the time, I assumed I was probably reading too much into the relationship with Grindelwald. But I wasn't surprised when Rowling confirmed it.

[cryptique]

next week we learn that one of the students was a pre-op tranny. I won't spoil the party...

My money's on Cho Chang.

 

 

Definitely could be a dude.

[j4lackey]

Dumbeldore's in love with Clark Griswald?

[MattZ]

I have never read a harry potter book or seen a harry potter movie, but there was an interesting (and long) profile in the Aug 27, 2007 edition of The New Yorker on Sir Ian McKellen. He is gay and out of the closet. In real life, I mean.

 

The New Yorker doesnt reproduce all of its articles online. You have to buy it if you want to read it, otherwise I'd post it (or suggest interested parties check it out). Is this all a big coincidence?