J.K. Rowling Reveals that Dumbledore is Gay, World Stops Turning
This news is a few days old now, but I thought it was worth posting if only because of the polarizing reaction it has caused with Harry Potter fans around the world. During a reading at Carnegie Hall last Friday, author J.K. Rowling revealed a rather surprising factoid about Hogwarts headmaster Professor Albus Dumbledore. It turns out the man is gay. But how is this possible, you ask? It just is. There was never any mention of his sexuality in the books or the movies (as is generally the case with most characters over 100 years old), but Rowling claims that she had always envisioned him in this way. One revision of the script for the big screen adaptation of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince included a scene where Dumbledore had a flashback involving a previous female love interest, prompting Rowling to bring screenwriter Steve Kloves up to speed.
While some have applauded this sudden brave revelation by Rowling, others have called it opportunistic and unnecessary. It certainly seems strange and random to reveal something that has no bearing on the characters or story, although she defends it by saying that she had been asked a direct question by a fan and responded in kind. Does this change anything for you? Should Rowling have kept it a secret? One thing’s for sure, there’s going to be a lot more attention on Michael Gambon in the next two movies.
Comments (21)
that this is bothering so many people shows how far we have to go as people. I mean, jesus. Christians already hated these books, so i dont see why the fuck anyone cares to cover their shock and outrage.
I dont see it as opportunistic, as its not going to sell any books. Unnecessary? Someone asked Rowling a question, and she answered it. Its not like she staged some public event to out the guy. And so what if its not obvious that the Big D is gay? He’s got to wear pink and kiss other guys in the books or something? Can a character only be gay in fiction if they’re Queer Eye stereotypes or ridiculously flawed Six Feet Under-esque characters?
For the record though – I can see the gay.
Posted by Goon on October 25th, 2007I personally don’t care one way or the other about this… I still enjoyed the books/movies and will continue to do so. I just think that Rowling hadn’t always written Dumbledore as gay, and I think it was rather odd to come out with this revelation now of all times. It was wholly unnecessary and seems nothing more than a way to keep Potter in the news now that the final book is finished. Besides, I would have guessed either snape or malfoy were gay before dumbledore. I guess we will have some strange fan-fiction popping up now, though.
Posted by Jon Rocks on October 25th, 2007Goon… you do know that ‘Big D’ is the nick name of Duddly Dursley right? In the books. haha
Her books had nothing to do with sexuality so I really don’t see the point in this. Yes there were teenage romance interests but the topic of kissing was practically taboo in the books. Personally I think this is pointless. My answer to the question would have been:
“It’s not something I ever thought about while writing the novels and honestly I don’t see what baring it has on anything in them. The sexual preference of the characters was not something I considered my business. These are books aimed for children after all, sexuality just doesn’t really factor in.”
But then I didn’t write them, so what do I know. I loved all the books, while personally the movies are going down hill… I mean number five was just stuff coming at me like a title wave, had I not read the book I think I would have been lost. The overall message of the series is that love will triumph over evil. That’s LOVE, not sexuality. The story was about the power of love, sexuality had nothing to do with anything. So yes, I do think it’s unnecessary and pointless because really it doesn’t matter who Dumbledor was sexually attracted to. Unless your homophobic, then I guess it’d bother you… but that just means you’re not accepting of differences in others or yourself. (This was not aimed at anyone, I’m just rambling on.)
Posted by Aaron on October 25th, 2007WHO CARES!?? This doesn’t change what was written in the books, or anything about the books, all this does is give JK Rowling more press for her book tour, which, yes, will sell more books!!
Posted by mike on October 25th, 2007I do think homosexuality is not the norm. So if a character has an extraordinary trait like that, it’s obviously something you have thought out in advance. I think it’s weird that you would make a decision like that, and never do anything with it.
So in my mind, its a bit of press. I don’t mind it, at least it’s original, and makes her look good in the world of homosexuals. She already lost the christians so might as well wave the rainbow flag in their face too.
Posted by Henrik on October 25th, 2007Richard Harris portrayed likes-to-give Headmaster Dumbledore like a homosexual. Gambon has portrayed him much more differently than Harris, but that could just be what the character goes through in the series. Anyway, I don’t know why the question comes up now instead of early on in the series. I don’t think it’s opportunistic because I can’t see many people liking the idea of old gay wizards. Now if Harry were gay then it would be a different story.
So, does this change anything for me? Nope. I give all English men the benefit of the doubt of being gay until they prove to me otherwise. Just kidding, but the English accent is deceivingly effeminate-sounding.
Posted by Primal on October 25th, 2007I’m with Goon on this one: a kid asked a question, and she answered it with the honesty she can now use to answer questions now that all seven books are complete and she doesn’t need to keep any information back. [She's been notoriously cagey in interviews in the past in order to protect certain plot points or to refrain from revealing too much detail that might get written into the story later on.]
I’m not going to make me look at the character differently. There is a *lot* of Dumbledore-is-gay subtext in the final book, so I don’t think the revelation is all that surprising to anyone who caught the subtext long before Rowling made any of these comments. Goon joked about how people seem to think Dumbledore needs to adhere to gay stereotypes (such as wearing pink) in order to be seen as gay, but Dumbledore *does* wear a rather pimptastic purple velvet suit in a flashback scene in the sixth book.
I can’t really believe anyone thinks it’s a publicity stunt or anything like that. This woman is richer than the Queen of England! Her books have sold millions! Rowling seriously does not need to do *anything* to sell more books; they sell themselves.
Posted by Liz on October 25th, 2007“I do think homosexuality is not the norm. So if a character has an extraordinary trait like that, it’s obviously something you have thought out in advance.”
this train of thinking only works if Rowling has the same beliefs about homosexuality as you apparently do.
and by the way, my sister is a lesbian, is awesome, and I can assure you with every fibre of my being its not something she chose.
not the norm… pfft. “majority” and “norm” are not mutually exclusive terms.
Posted by Goon on October 25th, 2007Homosexuality is as natural as being left handed. it hits people of every culture, religion, nation regardless of laws against it, male and female, all ages. Its been around as long as time itself, theres no handicap from it mentally or physically. They are completely the same except for sexual orientation. There is no basis to call it a genetic defect, abnormality, or disease. “not the norm” is something you decided for yourself. Please evolve some thumbs.
Just from personal experience, they are teaching students at the college level that homosexuality is a genetic defect in a previous Human Sexuality course I took a few years ago. All I remember was that it was a certain chemical produced in the brain and if you lacked that chemical, you would most likely be gay. We even had to attend lectures by gay people who promoted this.
Posted by Primal on October 25th, 2007“Homosexuality is as natural as being left handed. it hits people of every culture, religion, nation regardless of laws against it, male and female, all ages. Its been around as long as time itself, theres no handicap from it mentally or physically. They are completely the same except for sexual orientation. There is no basis to call it a genetic defect, abnormality, or disease. “not the norm†is something you decided for yourself.”
That sums up my position pretty well, so it’s worth repeating.
Posted by TheSnowLeopard on October 25th, 2007I wonder when Rowling will have a press conference to reveal that Ron Weasley is left handed.
Posted by Greg on October 26th, 2007I guess nature vs. nurture on this subject is an ongoing debate. I have no interest in becoming personal when talking about something like this though. I don’t get why you would bring your immediate into something like this.
“it hits people of every culture, religion, nation regardless of laws against it, male and female, all ages.”
Wouldn’t ‘all ages’ contradict that it’s natural and not subject to outside influences?
I don’t at all think that homosexuality is a defect or disease (not sure if you were insinuating I did or not). My point was just that sexuality in fictional characters is obviously a part of them that has to be thought over. And it seems weird that you would decide to make them a minority for no reason. That’s why I think it smells like press.
Posted by Henrik on October 26th, 2007“Wouldn’t ‘all ages’ contradict that it’s natural and not subject to outside influences?”
no. what I meant by that is that its not something people grow out of.
“I don’t get why you would bring something immediate into this”
That’s a convenient out.
Because this is the real world where people actually know people you spew bullshit about, and not playtime where you get to discriminate against people based on flimsy to no evidence. re you close with even ONE gay person?
“Nature vs. nurture”
I could go on for days on the many levesl of bullshit within those debates, but I’ll boil it down to this:
Its a ridiculous crutch to allow yourself your ignorance. Even if gay people actually DID choose their orientation – so what? What does that change? What gives you the right to make laws against them fucking, sucking, marrying or otherwise? What happened to freedom of choice? “Nature vs. Nurture” isnt suppressing homosexuals around the world, its asshole straight people whose religion or uptight precious widdle feewings get hurt by the idea of people who are harming NOONE, out there being who they are.
Government policy does not exist to validate your religious beliefs or personal biases, its there to protect ones rights and liberties. If you actually don’t think its a disease than I don’t see how you could argue with that.
“It seems weird that you would decide to make them a minority for no reason. That’s why I think it smells like press.”
It’s her character, if she says she’s always pictured him gay, I can only take her at her word. AGAIN – she did not go out of her way to make this statement, someone asked her a question and she answered. Period. Clearly she has her own reasons for thinking he’s gay, or based him off someone gay that she admired or something, it doesnt matter. I dont get how the fuck a random comment turns into some campaign to push “the gay agenda” or sell more books. She’s already sold all the books in the world, she doesn’t need to pull publicity stunts, which is another piece of evidence why this is clearly NOT one.
Posted by Goon on October 26th, 2007What I had read is that some gay groups are annoyed that she would only reveal it now, after all the books are done because it can’t hurt her book sales anymore. I don’t buy that though, because I’m sure the books sell well after their first month of release and it could still affect the movies — I seriously doubt it would matter to her either way.
I don’t think she came up with this on the spot, I just find it strange that anyone would even consider the sexuality of this character at all. But then again, as Liz said, I have heard there are gay undertones related to him in the last book anyway, so maybe it is more important than some of us realize.
Posted by Sean on October 26th, 2007Well, I guess I’m a bit more cynical when it comes to people talking about their own work.
I agree with you, I don’t care wether people are gay because of nature or nurture. I’m sorry if bringing that up has alot of terrible connotations for you, didn’t mean to do that. I don’t feel the debate is pointless though, I think it’s interesting. Not in order to find a way to classify or stop people from being gay, just to figure out what the answer is.
I don’t get why you all of a sudden lump me in with people wanting the right to make laws against gay people. I’ve said nothing to even remotely support that conclusion! My interest in the issue is purely sociological.
Posted by Henrik on October 26th, 2007well Henrik, after some of your one off comments before, and the way you stated it… well… the vast majority of people who say ‘not the norm’ are doing so from a specific religious or phobic bias.
if you just want to ‘figure out the answer’ thats fine, however as i said, i find the N vs N debates to be a diversion from the overall civil rights issues.
Posted by Goon on October 26th, 2007Not the norm just means its a minority. It doesn’t mean it’s not normal.
Posted by Henrik on October 26th, 2007Maybe it’s also the fact that where I live there has never been any civil rights issues concerning sexuality. Maybe I’m insensitive to people actually having these problems, but it’s only because I could never really take it seriously, given how it is where I live.
Posted by Henrik on October 26th, 2007well Henrik, you said ‘not the norm’ and that homosexuality was an ‘extraordinary trait’ – which seemed to be saying to me that it was not normal at all.
Posted by Goon on October 26th, 2007Extraordinary means it’s out of the ordinary, which it is. It’s a minority. You’re being way too defensive, but I guess it’s nothing new.
Posted by Henrik on October 26th, 2007“you’re being way too defensive”
thats funny, because thats how I think you’re being
Posted by Goon on October 26th, 2007Leave a Reply